Homosexuality and homophobia.

[daedalus_dude]

I would like to understand this widespread belief that extreme homophobia or hate for homosexuals is driven by closeted homosexuality.

It seems like the idea that the most vocal gay haters are themselves gay is a very persistent myth or stereotype. But what is its origin?

One aspect of it might be, that when such cases do occur, like for instance with Larry Craig, it strikes people as so bizarre that a few isolated cases get discussed so much that it may seem like the phenomenon is actually more common than it is.

Another aspect might be that maybe people generally tend to believe that when a person is very defensive or vocal about any issue, this person might have something to hide and is acting
that way to compensate or cover it up.

This goes hand in hand with the possibility that, whenever the environment is very intolerant
and hostile towards gay people, this creates a strong incentive for gays to try to hide it, and might
cause some to "overdo" this.

Of course popular culture has done its share to perpetuate the idea too, for instance with movies such as "American Beauty" or "Chasing Amy".

I understand that many homosexuals are offended by a statement such as "well that guy is probably gay himself", because it reduces cases of violence against homosexuals to "gay on gay" violence, and offers a cheap way for society not to deal with its own prejudism. Being offended by the statement is therefore probably the correct reaction.

I'd be interested to hear some ideas, because this is something that confuses me alot.

edit: fixed tags

[Renew Deal]

1. ...

[Renew Deal]

3. And almost forgot...

[mitchtv]

28. this one was not closeted and never denied being Gay

as far as I know

[NYC_SKP]

4. Wow....that's one good looking gay man!

Posted just in case he's lurking...

[grantcart]

9. Can you name this anti gay homosexual?

answer below











http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/

[Toucano]

14. What about this one?

[yurbud]

34. roy cohn (demonstrating how he helped Sen. Joseph McCarthy relax)

[Toucano]

54. You baaad!

:rofl:

[mitchum]

44. He and his buddy J Edgar Hoover are THE poster boys for that hypocrisy

[Toucano]

2. Firstly...

:popcorn:

[Mari333]

5. maybe this will help...APA study

American Psychiatric Association study

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

[daedalus_dude]

8. Hmm that is interesting.

It seems to suggest that a false interpretation of an experiment might be the origin.

[Toucano]

12. You can also see the original data.

And then share with us how you would interpret the experiment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

[daedalus_dude]

31. well, the ambiguity has been stated in the article itsself.

if anxiety causes erections, then the erections may not have been caused by the stimuli directly.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. The most important part, IMO.

"Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'"

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. I don't buy that - after all, it specifically says anxiety 'enhances'

arousal and erection. Anxiety does not 'cause' arousal and erection. Therefore, only if you are already aroused will anxiety add to it.

Seriously, how often are people aroused by being threatened? For me, a threat will kill the libido, not arouse it.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Enhance = to heighten; increase; intensify; magnify

A pre-existing condition is not required. In this case, a perceived threat (homosexual imagery) creates an anxious response and thereby "enhances" a sexual reaction. Going from flaccid to semi- or full erection would therefor be an "enhancement."

"Seriously, how often are people aroused by being threatened? For me, a threat will kill the libido, not arouse it."

It may not be a reaction you would have, but there are plenty of people where an anxious response would result in arousal. There have been a number of lawyers who tried to nullify rape charges because the victim was "aroused." Several years back, a judge made an obscene remark about "juices flowing" indicates no rape occurred. There have been studies of men in combat situations who experienced erections prior to a firefight or serious engagement. These situations obviously have nothing to do with sexual stimulation. So, while you think you may not experience an erection during a stressful situation, it does not rule out that others do.

[Touchdown]

58. This study is misinterpreted as a universal truth by many

While I don't discount the possibility of many closet cases to overcompensate with homophobic attitudes, it's far from a universal truth that all people who hate gays must be gay themselves. There's a certain bunch on DU that post links to this study to justify their belief that anyone who is evil is also gay, since they hate gays too.

Sometimes bigotry is just bigotry.

[defendandprotect]

67. Seems perfectly clear . . . and we have yet to deal with bi-sexuality -- !!!!

And, I think it's clear from the evidence -- reality --

[yodoobo]

6. Are there any statistics or studies on this?

Seems like most of the argument from both sides boils down to "yes they are" vs "not they are not"

[daedalus_dude]

7. Just recurring observation of DU posts.

Countless flamewars have been held over this here AFAIK.

[yodoobo]

25. yea I agree, I've seen the same

I guess thats why I'm wondering. What are the facts exactly?

Both sides of this argument seemed to be repetition of closely held beliefs that quickly devolve into poo throwing at each other.

[d_r]

10. why else would they be afraid

The reason homophobia is thought to be associated with repressed (NOT CLOSETED, REPRESSED) homosexuality is because people can't understand any other reason why someone would be afraid of homosexuality or homosexuals.

FWIW, I'm straight. It just never occurred to me to be attracted to people of the same sex. So it doesn't bother me or frighten me to be around gay friends. It is just no big deal to me.

I think that the idea is that people who are afraid to be around homosexuals have feelings and attractions that they are afraid of and try to deny. They keep telling themselves that they don't get that special tingly feeling, so they are afraid to be around gay people. They try to avoid gay people. They are trying to deny they have gay feelings, so they have to keep gay people away so they won't have those feelings. And they are trying to prove to themselves and others that they are not gay, so they have to keep saying "HEY, I don't like gay people!" as a way to try to prove it. If they weren't worried about it, why would it bother them? They are afraid of admitting their own feelings or attractions, so they make a big deal out of how much they dislike people who also have those feelings and attractions.

I don't think that people are saying that they are closeted homosexuals just trying to hide it, I think they are saying they are repressed homosexuals trying to deny it from themselves and others.

I can understand though, how it can be insulting, and honestly I doubt that all homophobes are repressed homosexuals, but some surely are I would think.

[daedalus_dude]

11. Thanks for the response.

That does make some sense to me.

[Echo In Light]

37. Another point: misogyny is often the root of homophobia

Fear of the 'other' that is feminine.

[defendandprotect]

68. True . . . which is why organized patriarchal religion demeans females . . .

and has always sought to control reproduction.

[subcomhd]

61. yeppers

I have been around a few who just go on and on and on about gays to the point it is an obvious fascination.

[SidneyCarton]

15. I think that it is an assumption

That we project that which we hate the most about ourselves onto others.

In some cases this likely true, but not all. I doubt Fred Phelps is a closeted gay man, I think instead that, as one of his sons who has left his church argued, Phelps just gets off on the hatred.

In many cases I think that Homophobes are really misanthropes, who can mask their hatred of their fellowman, by picking a particular group, who are still acceptable to anathemize, and focusing their loathing and malignancy in that direction.

[daedalus_dude]

17. True, Phelps is a good example of a guy who simply hates everybody.

Jews, gays, women, "abortionists", soldiers, catholics, you name it.

[Dogtown]

21. Nice observation, SydneyCarton.

I posted a similar but alternative view downstream, but your posit certainly has merit. It may be more nearly true than mine.


I've noted similarly "culling of the herd" when smokers are attacked on DU.


:hi:

[Dogtown]

16. Nicely articulated post.

For demographics, I'm a straight 60 YO male.

I've wondered myself and don't accept the meme, except perhaps in some individual cases. My guess is that most homophobes are more motivated by their patriarchal, un-evolved primate need for dominance than by actual sexual appetites. For instance, if women are inherently inferior to men, then should they be subservient to gay men also? That kind of wild variable is too difficult for them to process on an unconscious level, so they lash out.

It's interesting that several Native American tribes, untrammeled by a patriarchal belief system, were quite tolerant of homosexuality.

[Smarmie Doofus]

18. It's a fundamental Freudian concept:

we condemn in others traits that we refuse to acknowledge in ourselves. This does motivate a particularly nasty but relatively freakish strain of the homophobia in our midst.

But it's small potatoes.

The predominant driving force fueling societal homophobia, imo: avid and unambivalent *heterosexuality*... the practitioners of which find it easy to condemn something which is alien to their own emotional experience .

[Rebubula]

19. Most times...

...I think that people fear what they do not understand.

[Sapphocrat]

22. Please be careful here.

First, I'll appreciate you not using "homosexual" as a noun; the word reduces us to our genital function. That's what the homophobes themselves do, in order to dehumanize us, so that it's easier to demonize us as the faceless Other. Please use "gay" or "lesbian" if you mean gay or lesbian, and "bisexual" when you mean bisexual, and "transgender" when you mean transgender. Others may request you use different terms for them personally, but these are safe words which will not offend in open conversation.

As to your general question:

1. Some homophobes are self-loathing closet cases. Ex: Larry Craig, Donnie McClurkin, (Spokane mayor) Jim West.

2. Some homophobes are delusional religious fundamentalists who wouldn't know Jesus if he rose again and bit them in the ass, who think God is telling them to bash gay people, verbally, physically, and/or through our flawed legislative process. Ex: Maggie Gallagher, Phyllis Schlafly, Sally Kern (yes, there is a preponderance of straight white women in this group).

3. And some homophobes are just hateful fucks who enjoy attacking anyone different than they, because they are threatened by anyone and anything that challenges their narrow little worldview of how things should be. Ex: John Lotter and Tom Nissen (rapists and murderers of Brandon Teena).

Most homophobes fall into category 3, which overlaps with and is often indistinguishable from category 2. Contrary to popular belief, category 1 is dwarfed in size by categories 2 and 3. Never make the mistake that category 1 is in the majority; it's not.

[Smarmie Doofus]

24. In a nutshell: yes. nt

[daedalus_dude]

29. That seems to be a reasonable analysis.

And thanks, I'll keep in mind the noun-thing.

[yurbud]

36. yeah, I would agree. The 3 people would be racist or homophobic even if society had

no history of it because dealing with people who are different requires some thought and mental effort--which is also why they are afraid of illegal (but really ALL) immigrants.

[Starry Messenger]

40. I wish I could rec this post. n/t

[subcomhd]

51. do you think it is self-loathing or overcompensation?

as in "ol' Billy Bob can't be queer, he hates the queers." Also. I'm not trying to pick an argument but if the noun is gay or lesbian, shouldn't the bigots be gayophobes or lesbophobes? Just saying.

edited for spelling

[Sapphocrat]

55. As a lesbian, I can only guess.

I'd guess that it's both self-loathing and overcompensation for the closet cases, and merely overcompensation for the straight gay-bashers. Guys get the "Don't be such a faggot/pussy/sissy!" crap all their lives. (Even if they had a great dad, they get it from their peers, their coaches, their drill sergeants...) I suppose the degree of fear of being labeled a "faggot" has to do with how much a man has had to take of that treatment, and with his own threshold of endurance.

I think of a boy being dragged out to go hunting, and forcing himself to kill when he really doesn't want to, for fear of disappointing his father (and being called a sissy, or worse). Some boys never grow out of that, nor grow comfortable in their own skins. And our hypermasculinized society doesn't afford much opportunity (or respect) for men who don't feel the need to act like drunken Rambos. (Alan Alda is the classic example of a feminist male who has shrugged off the "effeminate" label with aplomb, and without damage. In that respect, I wish he were the archetypal role model for American boys.)

I could launch into why this explains how homophobia and misogyny (and LGBT equality and women's rights) are inextricably intertwined, but I think it's clear enough. And it's religious in origin; all mainstream religions are rooted in the idea that women are property, or at least less valued than men -- and anything that threatens to "reduce" a man to the level of a woman is reviled. That's why homophobes are usually the worst misogynists as well; to them, women and gay men are all the same, and they're terrified of being reduced to the status of either.

As for straight men who hate lesbians, that's easy: Their sense of masculinity is wounded because we don't need them to complete our lives or fulfill us sexually. It makes them crazier than you can imagine that they can't "convert" us. They cannot comprehend that lesbians are not defined as women who "hate men," but as women who love women -- and in a way they can never touch, or, more accurately, can never conquer and claim.

Then there are those who fear we'll steal their wives and girlfriends, and their sense of damage is compounded by the idea that they can't compete on the same level. All stupid idiocy, but if men like that would speak honestly -- assuming they recognized their real issues with lesbians -- that's what they'd tell you.

As for straight, homophobic women, the reason is often far more complex. They've got the religious delusion going on (I've never met an atheist -- male or female -- who was homophobic), complicated by the deeply ingrained idea that if they are not "successful" wives and mothers (as defined by their churches), they are failures as human beings. Homosexuality threatens their worldview on a variety of fronts, far too involved to go into in brief. The best (or worst) example I can offer is Maggie Gallagher, head of the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage. God is "in the mix," but read/listen to her words closely over a long period of time, and you'll see religion takes a backseat to her personal hangups about male-female relationships, which, I am convinced, are more pervasive than we know among anti-gay hetero females.

Hugo Schwyzer summed her up perfectly: "Gallagher wants a world where wives baby husbands like mothers baby sons (she uses the mothering image too often for it to be careless). Her contempt for women and men is staggering; for Gallagher, a man is apparently an eternal child and every woman is called, perhaps like Mary, to be long-suffering, maternal, and self-abnegating. (Since when did the Jesus-Mary relationship become the model for good marriages? That’s a perverse twisting of Ephesians 5 indeed, more perverse than even Freud could imagine!) For Gallagher, humiliation and degradation are feelings to be suppressed, denied, and overcome, while happiness itself — especially for women — is a 'dangerous temptation.'"

Now there's some real self-loathing.

In any case, I do not think Maggie Gallagher is an anomaly, but rather far closer to the "norm" among straight female 'phobes.

As for "gayophobes" and "lesbophobes," you've got a good point. (I've probably even used those words in the past myself when being ironic.) I guess "homophobe" is just convenient (not to mention proper in terms of its Greek origin, fear of or aversion to "the same"); it's like saying "gay" when one means "gay and lesbian," or "queer" as shorthand for the whole LGBTQQI spectrum (even though I'm told "queer" no longer means "queer" as I once knew it).

We do have "biphobia" (which sounds Greek, literally, to me), and "transphobia"; I'm not sure how long the latter has been in use, but I think it's a valid compound.


On edit: Stupid typo

[subcomhd]

56. wow, thanks for that incredibly excellent response

I may have some questions for you after I have a chance to read it a few more times. I think your point about even straight male 'phobes (we'll just call them) compensating is particularly spot on. The only thing I would take issue with is when you say "(I've never met an atheist -- male or female -- who was homophobic)." In my personal experience, that is true of female 'phobes, but I do know an atheist male 'phobe who I really think is bi-sexual and has some serious problems with it (I think he overcompensates and is also self-loathing.)

Anyway, great post.

[myrna minx]

71. Thank you for this excellent post.

:hi:

[MineralMan]

23. While I think it's true in some cases, I have no idea of the

percentages. We've had some public instances demonstrating that it certainly can be true. I would't go so far as to say it is the majority of homophobes who have repressed homosexual desires, but in some cases it appears to be true.

It makes for an interesting way to rag on homophobes though...accusing them of being what they hate. I think that's why those comments are so frequent here. It's not an anti-GLBT thing...it's just a way of poking at the hypocritical folks.

Hypocrisy seem to be the prime mover in a lot of wingers, one way or another. Of that we have ample evidence, neh?

[Smarmie Doofus]

33. I don't think these people are on DU. So they are not.....

.... going to be effectively "ragged on".

Regardless of intent, it ( this tactic) invariably implies that there is something wrong about homosexuality. Therefore, posters who engage in this kind of "argument"... if you can call it that.... are spinning their wheels,at best; promoting the homophobia they ostensibly condemn, at worst.


>>>>>It makes for an interesting way to rag on homophobes though...accusing them of being what they hate>>>>

[Prism]

41. People often use the hypocrisy argument to excuse their bigotry

From racism to sexism to homophobia, I've seen far, far too many people enjoying themselves a little too thoroughly when they're given a "safe" target to unleash sentiments and ideas that would not otherwise be allowable in mixed liberal company. These feelings and thoughts do not spring to spontaneous life the minute an appropriate target presents itself. The ideas were always there. They had simply been disguised and covered up in public to avoid rebuke. You can make people say the words, but some of them will never learn the music. We saw exactly that sort of thing in a really awful AIDS thread last week.

No matter how much Sarah Palin disgusts me, I will never use her womanhood to demean her. No matter how frustrating I find a Michael Steele or Clarence Thomas, I will never use racial stereotypes to mock them. No matter how hateful the homophobe, I will never divine their sexuality and then make derogatory sexual remarks to poke at them.

Because hatred is always wrong, no matter what the target, no excuses allowed.

Like pigs in the mud, some people just cannot resist the opportunity to dive in for a roll or three when the opportunity arises. But all that mud on the outside is only a reflection of all the filth on the inside they keep tidily contained in secret.

[MineralMan]

49. You've expressed your opinion very well, indeed.

[VMI Dem]

26. Studies show that many racists are themselves minorities.

Its f'n science.

[Iggo]

27. ...

[Echo In Light]

30. Projection: fear of the 'other' within, but not necessarily suggesting every person who...

... relies on this unconscious tactic is driven by homophobia in the direct, literal sense you've alluded to, but of fearing what others (or they, themselves) may think of them if there's a display of what that person fears might be tagged as homosexual-friendly, which is a few steps away from inclination or the perception of.

I suppose there's also the idea that we're all born w/a potential to gravitate toward either, which is then shaped/guided within dominant strains within one's social environment/climate of opinion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Only the ignorant would claim that every homophobe is a closeted gay.

And only the ignorant would claim that there are no homophobic closeted gays.

Many hard-core public homophobes have been revealed to be gay - J Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn come to mind, not to mention the numerous preachers and republican politicians that have been revealed in recent years. For many it is a self-defense thing - they know their constituency would not tolerate them for who they are, so they go to great lengths to out-bigot their constituents.

Of course, a great many more closeted gays are not homophobic, even with false posturing. That is the norm, and has been for a long time.

I figure the self-loathing homophobes would loath themselves whether they are gay or not.

[closeupready]

38. Since I have lived much of my life now in places where gays predominate, my answer will reflect

a less offended mind, since I do not consider this question offensive, even though I am 100% gay.

When I was quite young and growing up in a very homophobic town, I also received messages that 1) gays were/are bad; and 2) the way to distance yourself from charges of being gay was to vocally put yourself as far from gays and homosexuality as possible, the further the better.

So for many people who make this claim (that homophobes are homosexuals, themselves), it may be that they speak from a kind of personal experience, such as what I recall from my own background?

[Prism]

42. I tend to believe this is the biggest motivation

Take a homophobic culture, religion, and the high emphasis on masculinity in the socialization of boys, and you have a potent brew for hatred. Boys are trditionally taught at an early age that all things effeminate are a weakness to be not only despised, but openly stamped out in those who exhibit it. And if these boys cannot be "toughened" through psychological, emotional, and physical torment and intimidation, then they are shunned and cast out.

One need not be gay to live in fear of that social structure, to run from it as far as possible, to actively strive to prove that you are a "man" and not one of those sissies. One need not be gay to be victimized by that kind of culture and society, either. Plenty of perfectly straight men who exhibit signs of "softness" find themselves assaulted by these same agents of mysogyny.

Too many people are inculcated with those attitudes. They adopt them as their own, that disdain for perceived weakness, the "taint" they perceive on masculinity, a distinct threat to how they understand the world and how it ought to work.

By defaulting to assumptions of repressed homosexuality, people are able to dismiss and ignore this pervasive, out-of-control cult of masculinity that has damaged so many young men, gay and straight alike. Even other gay men are susceptible to it. They show open contempt for a "certain kind of gay" and are relentlessly attempting to prove that "No, I'm different. I'm the kind of gay man straight men can like!"

It's all of a piece, all insidious, and wreaking far more havoc across this country than a few famous closet cases could ever manage.

[closeupready]

43. "No, I'm different" Yes, exactly. You also see this in those who search for SASA,

"straight-acting, straight-appearing" gay men. Insidious is a good word to describe it, the misogyny in American culture that gives birth to these kinds of social head games in males.

[Prism]

47. It's also an overlooked explanation

Take the most recent minster in the news (his name escapes me). He has some effeminate mannerisms, so many simply assume he's really gay and his hatred is a reflection of self-loathing. However, an equally plausible explanation is that his natural "softness" created a need in him to prove himself that much more. He could be perfectly straight, have a history of being picked on a lot for his mannerisms, and decided he had to go to radical lengths to prove his masculinity and toughness.

It doesn't necessarily need to mean secret homosexuality. It could be just as likely that he's combatting his own sense of male inadequacy, and this is the format in which he chooses to do it.

I think this works in the context of that scientific study. I imagine many homophobes fear even the possibility of being seen as gay, so when they're shown gay porn, that anxiety could translate into the sexual reaction they're most trying to avoid. The simple fear of it could be enough to trigger it. Speaking only for myself, I know there are times when actively not wanting my body to react in a certain way in certain situations only results in practically guaranteeing that it will. (That need not be in a sexual context either. In any social context, anxiety can overwhelm physiology).

Repressed gay is a possibility, but I don't understand why it's always the default. There are so many more interesting and plausible possibilities that not only explain homophobia, but give us a clearer picture of the screws and cogs in society that are creating and perpetuating it.

[closeupready]

39. It's also worth exploring why in Anglo Saxon society, but not, say, in muslim societies,

why it is the case that even though both types of societies condemn homosexuals and homosexuality, intermale affection is traditionally spurned by Anglos and, on the other hand, is traditionally quite widespread among muslims.

[readmoreoften]

45. Most homophobes are straight. Some are gay and trying to keep up with the straight-hate

as not to blow their cover.

Are those who murder transmen and women also transgendered? Yeah, I don't think so.

[Lex]

46. Come to think of it, the racists I know are really black and that's why

they are racists. Simple, really.

I mean, if they weren't, WHY ON EARTH would they have a problem with black people?

It's so clear.

[subcomhd]

60. openly gay and happens to be black

"You know, you wouldn't say someone was "openly black." Well, maybe James Brown. Or Louis Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan is openly black. Colin Powell is not openly black. Colin Powell is openly white - he just happens to be black."
George Carlin RIP

[Spike89]

48. Lots of these people fear the power of sex

They don't neccessarily need to be closeted homosexuals, they just know that they have never learned how to deal with their libido. For some men, it isn't so scary for women to have that power over them, because they feel they can exert plenty of counter-balancing control over the women in their lives.
The idea of sex among equals scares them.

[subcomhd]

50. I don't know if there is a real correlation or not but

in addition to the well-publicized examples mentioned here, I know of several people from my high school days who were always talking about "fags" this and "fags" that. One used to go out of his way - I'm not kidding - to tell us he liked "girl on girl" porn because he didn't have to look at penises. Well, all three of those guys were out of the closet by the time they finished college. Two of them were lovers at one point. I think the "overcompensating" you mentioned is more likely than self-loathing, the old "me thinks thou dost protest too much." Whenever I hear someone make homophobic comments, I don't assume they are a closet case, but when someone goes on and on about it (their disapproval of gays)I tend to start thinking there is more there than bigotry.

[bridgit]

52. When it's all said & done it's a two-way street - respect - with connectors, over-passes...

country roads, freeways, other sides of other streets, etc, but lack of it can shape a generalized disrespect; and I think that that can be the moment when people start dealing from within a wary position and I say rightly so. For me, a prime downside to having the bottom fall out of shared respect, is that some begin to view people not as people but things; like things that reside in closets, or the things in that jumbled-up drawer in the kitchen with all 'the odd extra household stuff' that maybe has that stick-pin some have sought most tenaciously ever since, or a single locket in a heart shaped box

[subcomhd]

53. Wow, that was strange and

and weirdly beautiful.

[gleaner]

57. I 'm not sure what you are looking for ....

hatred of Gays is driven by the same forces as racism and other forms of xenophobia. A baseless fear of anyone or anything that is "different" than the observer. People who hate and fear based on difference, basically are people who do not cope with change and who are intolerant to the point where they feel that they have the right, if not the obligation, to destroy, maim, assault or murder what they don't understand. It is a very extreme world view which I think verges on insanity. It is not insanity, however, it is simply hatred by people who are too ignorant to simply live and let live.

It would be a much better world if everyone realized that they have no business dictating the circumstances and "rightness" of anyone else's life, unless it is a criminal who is punished for a specific crime by the justice system. Last I heard, being "different" isn't a crime. The problem lies with the people who view it as one.

[Touchdown]

59. A lot of it stems from people who are too intellectually lazy to...

try and undertstand or figure out why someone would be homophobic, so it's an easy out just to write them off as gay so they don't get too brain taxing. This sort of masks the well meaning, usually liberal and self described as "open minded" labeller as homophobic as well, since they'd rather not spend so much intellectual energy on "gonad issues", especially the homo ones.

Usually they defend their cavalier attitude on their BS "Cheney's Gay! Coulter's A Trannie! Dobson is a big 'mo!" talk by citing a certain university study, which coinkidinkly... is posted right up near the top of this VERY THREAD! Suprise! Suprise! This study is usually used by those who label homophobes gay (which is hypocritically homophobic in itself) to deflect from their own bigotry. The study does have value, but it is far from a universal truth. Many here on DU use it as a universal truth.

Put it this way, the idea that Pat Robertson, whose made billions of dollars demonizing gay people and hold enormous sway on the political landscape, secretly wants to be gay as much as David Duke secretly wants to be black or Tom Tancredo secretly wants to cross the Rio Grande to pick lettuce for $5 s bushel.

[closeupready]

62. Interestingly, you have failed to account for the personal experiences noted here,

my own and those of others. In summary, that in our own lives, those we've known who were the most vocally homophobic frequently turned out to be gay themselves.

Obviously, there can be more than one valid explanation.

[Touchdown]

63. I did say that the study does have some validity.

I also said it's usually misinterpreted by well meaning hypocrisy seekers.

But those testimonies beg a further question. Were the friends or acquaintances truly the "most homophobic", or was there some projection on the part of the observer to assume that their gay because of mannerism tells, or some stereotype that is easily categorized, then only later confirmed? If one is assumed to be gay, then every action they do to the contrary of that narrative, is amplified as homophobic behavior.

[closeupready]

64. Good questions.

Food for thought. :hi:

[skypilot]

65. After reading through this thread...

...something else has occurred to me. These discussions about homophobia and latent/closeted homosexuality always seem to progress as though only men are homophobic. The examples of homophobes who turned out to be gay (and even the ones who didn't) seem to be invariably male. Plenty of women are put off by the thought of same-sex couples and intercourse and are vocal about it. As far as I know, there have been no scandals involving vocal female opponents of gays and lesbians who've turned out to be lesbians themselves. Are these homophobic females actually closeted lesbians who are better at hiding it?

[Divine Discontent]

73. I don't know, but I have a close female friend that

thoroughly enjoys watching male/male eroticism. Everyone is different in their levels of like/dislike, sexually, with the same/opposite sex and frankly, the problems that people have with being able to handle differences in other people are just a sign of fear on their part for what they feel inside, and don't know how to express.

I had a gay friend who died a few years back, he wanted to, and not paying attention to his blood clot issues got his wish, and he couldn't come to grips with his being gay, so he would bring a child over to his place every weekend, which blew my mind, but the mom & dad of the kid allowed it. I hope nothing happened and that he just needed a male buddy/son to feel complete, but because of his (100% certain) hidden gay problem, he acted out oddly in his own life, oh, and he was a staunch Republican.

Anyhow, interesting posts. Again, I just think the conservative minded people or ignorant (doesn't have to be both) have a horrible time accepting differences, or things that aren't the norm for their immediate surroundings or what others tell them is not 'normal'.

I lost someone very very very dear to me because of that (it's not normal!) bullshit line, and I don't like when people mock differences because all it proves the person doing it has issues. I saw a group of 5 young men in the workout facility I go to, and the prettiest one of the five mocked some other young guys there who were practicing dance moves, and kept staring at them over and over. The other guys rarely looked or commented, but the most 'bothered' by the dancers was the most pretty of the men, and I thought, 'oh God, a self-hater in the making'.

Why does sexuality have to be so problematic for most, I dunno... it's frustrating. I know when I realized and accepted what I appreciate in human beauty, that I could care less what others think. Odds are a good portion of those that protest my views probably share them deep down.

[MajorChode]

66. If you're looking for it's origin, Freud theorized it many years ago

And it's not so much a case of "closeted homosexuality" as it is about latent homosexual desires. Everyone has both homosexual and heterosexual desires to some degree. Some try to convince themselves or others otherwise by casting disparity on homosexuals. It's simply a way to cover up or mask their own feelings of shame and really is just a form of self loathing in many instances.

Freud theorized this and the university professor that conducted the previously mentioned study on repressed homosexual desires was actually trying to prove Freud wrong, but instead proved him right.

[defendandprotect]

69. I think Kinsey got it right, as well -- majority of us are bisexual to some degree . . .

and hetereo and homo are the absolutes, evidently.

However, if we look at the male world, what it mainly practices, wants, and tries to
live is a homo-social experience!

That should give us a further clue about what is really going on -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

70. Why would this article have only 1 recommend . . . ?????

[defendandprotect]

72. Good article to cause re-thinking of what we're thinking and saying . . .

I would like to understand this widespread belief that extreme homophobia or hate for homosexuals is driven by closeted homosexuality.

It seems like the idea that the most vocal gay haters are themselves gay is a very persistent myth or stereotype. But what is its origin?

Your post has caused me to re-think what I truly have thought about all of this and what
I've been saying about it so I think this is a well-timed article which should get us all thinking!

I do agree that the underlying intolerance for gays/lesbians comes from patriarchy/organized
patriarchal religion's war on women -- still going on --

and needless to say, their interests were founded in creating new members and controlling
human sexuality to increase that possibility.

Gays/lesbians would have been evidence in conflict with the "norm" they were trying to create of
the patriarchal family - male/female=procreation.

On the other hand, we do see the evidence of a RCC which went from Pope/Prostitute trysts to
pedophile-priests abusing members! Attempts to untangle that mess -- while the RCC seeks to
blame homosexuals for the abuse -- is still going on.

RATHER, HETEREOSEXUAL MALES ARE 100X MORE LIKELY TO SEXUALLY ABUSE CHILDREN THAN HOMOSEXUAL
MALES ARE!

On the other hand, I do know that I have frequently reacted to the unmasking of very right wing
religious figures as being homosexually-oriented as confirming my basic feelings about them.

But I don't think that I have ever thought that everyone who expresses homophobia is in denial
of their own sexuality.

Nor do I think we can ignore that being forced to be in denial of one's self -- to be told that
you are loathed by the world and by "god" is good for anyone's mental health!

And, IMO, Richard Nixon was a perfect example of that. Might he have been less corrupt had he
not been forced to hide the truth of his sexuality? I can only guess!