New Science Confirms Homophobic Men Have Intense Homosexual Impulses

[Berlin Expat]

From the article:

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 non-homophobic 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. PMID: 8772014 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Article here: http://www.feelguide.com/2011/06/16/new-science-confirms-homophobic-men-have-intense-homosexual-impulses/

Yep.....someone please tell Bryan Fischer and the folks at the Family Research Council to come out of the closet.

[CurtEastPoint]

1. I'm on your side but just a note: this study is not new... 1996.

Not that it changes the point but just that it's been around for a while:
http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

[elleng]

26. Right, been around for quite some time.

[8 track mind]

2. "Dad!!!!!!!"

"Fred Phelps is in the closet and he won't come out!"

[jmowreader]

29. "Homosexual" isn't the term I would use if I found Fred in a closet

"Monster" or "boogeyman" are much closer.

[polichick]

3. Yes - 'splains a lot of RepubliCons.

[bvar22]

4. Surprised?

Anyone?

[WinstonSmith4740]

16. Personally...

I'm shocked. SHOCKED! To learn there's gambling, excuse me, homosexual urges in men who are homophobic.

[Shampoobra]

5. It makes sense, at least on an anecdotal level

I finally made the connection when I saw this clip of Pat Robertson:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/pat-robertson-aids-rings_n_3824401.html

"You know what they do in San Francisco? Some in the gay community there, they want to get people. So if they got the stuff* they’ll have a ring, you shake hands and the ring’s got a little thing where you cut your finger," he said. "Really. It’s that kind of vicious stuff, which would be the equivalent of murder."

*(The "stuff" he's talking about is AIDS, which he makes clear in the video clip.)

There are so many things wrong with this claim, I don't know where to begin. (I mean, seriously, how does cutting the other guy give him your AIDS?) But notice that Roberson seems to be saying that deliberately infecting a person with AIDS is enough to "turn" the victim gay.

That's when I saw the pattern. Homophobes always act like the average heterosexual man is just a single dick-wag away from becoming gay. Dangle a penis in his face, and how can he resist? Or, as Roberson seems to believe: infect him with AIDS, and that's all the permission he needs to switch to a gay lifestyle.

Homophobes seem to habitually talk as if a person's sexual preference is that fragile. Make homosexuality acceptable, they appear to believe, and heterosexuals will flock to it. I seriously wonder why they default to such a belief, and if it has anything to do with their own secret desires.

[7962]

18. I posted an OP about that back in August. Some really funny replies too!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014578794

[BlancheSplanchnik]

35. must be projection....assuming everyone is like you

Except you!

(Uh, to be more clear, that should be "assuming everyone is like oneself....except oneself&quot

[xfundy]

91. "switch to a gay lifestyle"

There is no "lifestyle," just as there is no hetero "lifestyle." There is only life.

[dickthegrouch]

6. I wouldn't want that kind of idiot in my dating pool

If they came out of the closet, I think they'd be very poor dating prospects.

[Orrex]

7. Tempting though this is to believe...

The article doesn't say how they do it, but if they're measuring "penile circumference" with a penile plethysmograph, then this is junk science.

The plethysmograph is as valid a measure of sexual arousal as a polygraph is a reliable indicator of truthfulness. That is, it provides an accurate measure of the physical response that it purports to gauge, but it isn't clear that the biological response necessarily and specifically indicates that the response means what the researcher asserts it to mean.

Any male who's ever experienced a spontaneous change in "circumference" during the course of a day will recognize the danger in ascribing too much significance to this particular measurement.

[7962]

20. Never ceases to amaze me at what you might find out on DU!!

NEVER heard of a "penile plethysmograph"!!
I guess youre never to old to learn, right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

22. I didn't go to the actual study ...

but the findings indicated that none of the hetero-sexual, non-homophobic males(?) showed no erotic stimulation to the to the homosexual material? I find that hard to believe, since it is my understanding that all people fall on a spectrum between hetero-sexuality and homosexuality. So what does "Exclusively" hetero and "exclusively" Homosexual mean? Never engaged? Never thought of engaging? What?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

33. Well, go to the actual study and your fears will be put to rest.

In the actual study, from the graph replicated below, one can see that the non-homophobic heterosexual men did show some reaction to gay video stimulation. Just significantly less than homophobes.

[MillennialDem]

90. I think your statement is flawed for a few reasons

1. On a case by case basis, I don't think reaction to gay porn necessarily means person A is interested in gay sex. Or vice versa for hetero sex. I've known lesbian women who watch gay porn and lesbian women who watch straight porn but have no interest in men. I can't comment on hetero guys who admit to watching gay porn, because, well, most would not admit to such a thing even if they did it. I also don't know many gay men so I can't comment on how many of them admit to watching straight or lesbian porn. But I'm sure there are some that do. There are people with all kinds of weird fantasies that ONLY work as a fantasy and would never work in the real world.

2. Again, if someone is straight and watches gay porn I don't think that individual case merits much, but when you look at a number of individuals and notice that all or the vast majority of them get significantly aroused by gay porn that says something statistically. Very unlikely for all of them to have a cross orientation porn interest.

3. I could be misinterpreting, but are you saying that everyone is essentially "bi" to a slight extent? I have no real dog in the fight of whether I'm considered straight, gay, lesbian, or bi..... I'm a trans woman, I've just never had even the slightest interest in men. In fact I always thought boys were yucky and that made it hard to be one!

[Skittles]

24. you want I should kick some misinterpreting penile plethysmograph ass, Orrex?

LEMME AT THAT THING!

[Orrex]

46. You're always there for me.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

32. You are confusing application to individuals versus statistical studies

The PP is not applicable to individuals reliably, especially for forensic purposes.

However, as an indicator that is measured statistically over groups, it is very valid. The findings were supported by p statistics mostly p < 0.001, which is very significant (metaphorically similar to a thousand in one possibility it was a fluke).

Here is the study: http://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

If you like, let's summarize the study findings this way:

Statistically, homophobic males get the same PP reaction to gay porn as to non-gay porn.
Statistically, non-homophobic males get this PP reaction only to non-gay porn.

Here are the graphs from the study. The line with squares is non-homophobic heteros and the unadorned line is homophobic males. Top is hetero videos, middle is lesbian videos, bottom is gay male videos. As you can see there is some reaction but a significantly larger reaction by the homophobes to gay male videos.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Okay, but then the study's abstract is inaccurate ...

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.

But interestingly, the graphs also indicate that the homophobic males demonstrated more stimulation to all homosexual stimuli, than the heterosexual males. The noise in the homophobic males head must be really, really loud as they appear stimulated by that which they verbalize as repulsive/unnatural.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. It may be that the increase in the chart is not statistically significant. i.e. > 0.05

If the p statistic is greater than 0.05, it is rarely considered scientifically significant because the chance it is a fluke is greater than 1 in 20. p = 0.1 would be 1 in 10, for example.

But interestingly, the graphs also indicate that the homophobic males demonstrated more stimulation to all homosexual stimuli, than the heterosexual males. The noise in the homophobic males head must be really, really loud as they appear stimulated by that which they verbalize as repulsive/unnatural.

Yes. Also interestingly, homophobic men were less turned on by hetero porn than non-homophobic men, but once again, both that difference and the difference re lesbian porn are probably not statistically significant, though suggestive enough to warrant further study, perhaps.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Like I said ...

the inside of the homophobic head must be a very, very noisy place.

[Skraxx]

47. Cognitive dissonance is a noisy affair

[Jackpine Radical]

62. Here, from the original study:

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. An analysis of the simple effects of this interaction with pairwise Tukey tests indicate that the groups were significantly different at time blocks 4, 5, and 6 (p < .01 ).

[Orrex]

43. Are you satisfied with a sample size of 60 individuals?

I'm not, especially if they're using a device that doesn't reliably measure what the stidy is claiming to measure. 60 people is barely enough to draw conclusion about my graduating class, let alone the population as a whole.

This is all the more important because we must avoid the temptation of confirmation bias, since the findings purport to be consistent with the conventional wisdom of the internet, that homophobia results from self-denied homosexuality.

If larger studies using better measurements can corroborate these results, then maybe we'll have a workable conclusion. In the mean time, the current study is a gratifying curiosity.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. Yes, we would like a bigger better study. Seems like a fruitful area of research. nt

[Skittles]

50. Orrex and Bernardo de La Paz, debating penile plethysmograph data

yes INDEED

[jberryhill]

87. Does size matter?

[enki23]

54. I don't really think that's quite right.

Obviously, there will be some sort of signal-to-noise ratio. There always is. And it may be that the signal-to-noise ratio of this method is not good enough to categorize a particular person. But that doesn't at all mean that you can't use it to detect differences between groups, so long as you have enough statistical power to handle whatever the variance actually is.

Now, if it really is all noise and no signal, then what would explain the large apparent difference between the two groups on this measure? The only possibilities that come to mind are:

1. Fraud. You can always say this one, though. The only cure is outside replication. Even that isn't always a sufficient cure.
2. Chance. That's always possible, but the bigger the effect size the harder is to hide behind that one. If there were a large number of uncompensated multiple comparisons, I'd be more inclined to think that too. But that really doesn't seem to apply here.
3. Some sort of researcher bias, likely unconscious. My internet is spotty, and I haven't been able to load the study yet. Were the researchers blinded to which guys were in which group? I would hope so. If they weren't, that definitely might be a red flag.

None of the above really has anything to do with the methodology, though. If the method was *completely* useless, then there would be no signal, and you wouldn't expect there to be significant between-group differences at all. So I'm not buying that one.

[Jackpine Radical]

55. There are 2 diferent approaches to PPG instrumentation:

Circumferential (as you discuss) and volumetric. The latter is generally viewed as more accurate.

[Orrex]

56. An accurate gauge of the volume, perhaps

But an accurate interpretation of the underlying cause of the physiological response? I call BS.

We might as well hook 60 women up to a nippleometer, measure their volume when exposed to some manner of stimulus, and declare that we've made a breakthrough.

[Jackpine Radical]

57. I posted an extended commentary from an article on PPG

elsewhere in this thread. And I said nothing of the linkage between the measure and the "underlying cause of the physiological response." As a matter of fact, I have written reports and testified about the problems with PPG, so I rather resent your implication that my post about the two technologies constitutes some sort of endorsement of the clinical or forensic use of the device.

[Orrex]

58. This may come as a shock to you, but I don't scour DU to find your posts.

If you wanted me to read something that you find relevant, perhaps you should have pointed me to it.

But if we're so intent on playing the resentment card, then I might as well resent the fact that your cursory reading of my post led you to infer that I made any comment one way or the other about your endorsement, whatever it might actually be. You wrote that the device is held to provide an accurate measure of volume differential, a claim that I do not dispute. I simply pointed out that such measurement does not identify the cause underlying the change in volume.

Nowhere did I suggest that you were endorsing anything.

[Tikki]

8. This is sure obvious from some of my observations throughout my life time...

Can make for a certain kind of meanness, too.



Tikki

[Jackpine Radical]

9. I know I posted this study here ears ago. It's from 1996. The full paper is available online.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmy.psychologytoday.com%2Ffiles%2Fu47%2FHenry_et_al.pdf&ei=xfrWUqC3HvPQsATunoGgAw&usg=AFQjCNEQ3AA0SThXwi5Pnm7NZnnqLGNqBQ&sig2=D692yxItYECLN2WwkxwqrA&bvm=bv.59378465,d.cWc

[libodem]

28. I worked in Adolescent Treatment

Back in the 90's and they used those PPG' on the young male perps, to determine interest in younger kids.

It still seems barbaric and kind of iffy science.

Even gross stuff can be stimulating because it has sexual content, especially for young guys.

[Jackpine Radical]

49. I agree about the utility and clinical validity of PPG measurements.

They are used routinely in sex offender commitment proceedings despite the rather questionable science behind them.

One major problem, for example, is a lack of standardized stimuli, with each lab making up its own procedures, so results from one lab are not comparable to those from other labs.

In case you're interested, here are a couple of paragraphs from a 2006 paper by Marshall & Fernandez
(W.L. Marshall, Y.M. Fernandez / Aggression and Violent Behavior 8 (2003) 131–143 133):

Phallometry involves recording erectile responses to various sexual stimuli, and these procedures are said to establish the man’s sexual preferences. Phallometry is thought to provide a more objective estimate of the preferences than are their self-reports (Murphy & Barbaree, 1994). The required psychometric features of sexual preference testing have been detailed elsewhere (Marshall & Fernandez, 2000a; Murphy & Barbaree, 1994; O’Donohue & Letourneau, 1992). Therefore, the present comments will simply summarize the findings and highlight only those that best illustrate the issues relevant to this paper. In an earlier paper (Marshall & Fernandez, 2000a), we outlined several general features of phallometric asses- sment procedures that raised concerns about its value. For example, it was pointed out that although some advances have been made in detecting faking during phallometric testing (Malcolm, Davidson, & Marshall, 1985; Quinsey & Chaplin, 1988), these procedures are not always successful (Proulx, Cote ́, & Achille, 1993) and cognitive strategies might always be immune to control. Also, the question of the ecological validity of erectile preference testing has been questioned (Blader & Marshall, 1989). The vital issue here is how well do the stimuli and procedures used in phallometric assessment match the real world phenomena in question. Blader and Marshall (1989) pointed out, for example, that while actual rapes involve the simultaneous enactment of physical coercion and sexual arousal, phallometric appraisals of male responses to rape depictions involve only sexual arousal. In fact, Blader (1987) demonstrated that procedures involving the activation of physical coercion by the subject concurrent with measuring his sexual arousal to rape scenes provided the most marked discrimination between rapists and nonoffender males.
Similar challenges could be made to the ecological validity of the phallometric assessments of child molesters. For example, Marshall and Fernandez (2000a) point out that the visual stimuli (i.e., naked pictures of unknown children) used to assess the sexual preferences of incest offenders have little or no ecological validity. Incest offenders, by definition, abuse only their own children and would be expected, as a consequence of learned stimulus discrimination, not to respond to images of other children. This, of course, is precisely what has been found. However much has been made of these results suggesting that incest offenders are not, therefore, likely to be pedophilic when if fact the results have no real relevance for that possibility. As Murphy and Barbaree (1994) pointed out when incest offenders are presented with auditory descriptions of sexual activities between adults and children, which allow them to imagine their own victims, they respond deviantly.
Other potential threats to the meaning of phallometric results can and have been raised, but there are also other problems. For example, there are very considerable differences across studies evaluating the erectile responses of sexual offenders and other males (Marshall & Fernandez, 2000a). Stimuli differ both in the modality of presentation (i.e., slides, audiotapes, videotapes) and in content (e.g., single vs. multiple persons in the depictions, sexual acts vs. no sexual acts, presence or absence of brutality or humiliation, to mention just a few features). Instructions to subjects differ, the form in which responses are entered into data analyses varies, and the test administrator may be male or female. All of these features appear to influence results (Marshall & Fernandez, 2000a; Murphy & Barbaree, 1994; O’Donohue & Letourneau, 1992). The fact that phallometric tests are not standardized across settings almost certainly means that we can expect contradictory results from different laboratories, and that is essentially what has been found.

[libodem]

51. Very interesting

Thanks.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. Yes, the OP's title "New Science" is deliberately or ignorantly misleading. nt

Even the article they link to is from 2011. Hardly new, let alone the original study from 1996.

[paleotn]

10. Intersting and not terribly surprising....

...however, the sample size is quite small and it would be interesting to see if other researchers have replicated the results.

[alfredo]

11. I'm not surprised

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Old news, and human sexuality is so complicated that...

it's not just the lady who protests too much, methinks.

[blkmusclmachine]

13. Let's hook up Sociology Prof. Mark Regnerus (Univ. of Texas @ Austin) and see how he fares...

Not that I'm saying he's homophobic or anything. Just out of curiosity...

[kristopher]

14. Now they've done it.

Who is going to clean up the mess from all those heads exploding.

[Politicub]

15. Homophobes - men and women - are obsessed with sex

So this research isn't surprising. The most vehemently anti-gay people tend to cite their disgust with gay sex as one of the reasons they are homophobic.

It's very bizarre. You can see a lot of this type of behavior on news comment streams for the recent Oklahoma gay marriage ruling. The only people who are obsessed with talking about sex are the homophobes themselves.

[cyberswede]

17. Isn't that why the term uses the suffix "-phobia" rather than the prefix "miso-?"

(As in "misanthrope?&quot

I always thought "homophobia" meant fear of homosexuality (i.e. one's own homosexual impulses, to use the term in the OP title), which are manifest by "hating" gay people.

[dipsydoodle]

61. Would literally translate as a fear of human beings.

Its generally accepted as meaning anti-homosexuality.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Two meanings of "homo": 1) same (uniformity) antonym of hetero; 2) genus of humans. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Fucking hell.

I had to re-read the headline like 5 times to get it.

[merrily]

21. What about homophobic women?

[NealK]

23. Interesting.

[libodem]

25. No doubt about it

To me those types are the correct definition of a homophobe. They are so worried about their secret internal struggle they project hate outwardly toward others. They must be so uncomfortable.

The Larry Craigs of the planet are pitiful self-loathing creatures. They deserve compassion but, Goddess,it is hard to love them in their ignorance.


Education plus love and acceptance, is needed all around.

[HockeyMom]

27. Parents promote this in their children

Saw that growing up in Greenwich Village in the 50s and 60s. NO BABY is born prejudiced against anyone. Their parents instruct them on it.

[TrollBuster9090]

30. NEWS ALERT: to be followed by shocking allegations of bears shitting in the woods.

I'm SHOCKED!




Having lived through the hippie era, I can tell you that the intolerant redneck who was always the first one to beat up a hippie with long hair was usually the one who commented on what a nice ass that woman had before he turned around.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. This explains why I never understood the over the top revulsion especially by jocks.

[Initech]

36. LMAO! Bryan Fisher immediately came to mind.

[dorkulon]

37. Not new.

Too bad; some follow-up confirmation would be nice.

[nolabear]

38. I'm not crazy about this kind of reductive science.

If you're (and I mean the article, not the OP) going to quote Freud, it would be a good idea not to cherry pick and leave what seems like an opening for ridicule rather than understanding. Freud believed that very young children are "polymorphously perverse" (his term), i.e. their budding sexuality isn't all that exclusive of one gender or the other, and that hormones and life experiences combine to create the myriad preferences we all have for what is stimulating.

Stimulating isn't necessarily related to what gender we are primarily sexually attracted to; it can be an add-on, icing on the sexual cake. Men, women, men or women with certain physical or personality characteristics, men or women in various situations or decorations, and a whole lot of other things I won't go into, some of which are harmful to others and many of which aren't but carry a heavy burden imposed by circumstances, families, societies, etc. Sometimes intense shame accompanies those stimulations and reaction formation sets in - a strong disavowal that is as much an attachment to something as a strong attraction. Then can come self-hatred for that shameful fascination and a desire to destroy what is perceived as the source of the self-hatred. I've never thought "homophobia" was a great word. Seems to me it's not fear so much as shame and anger at loss of control turned outward.

If you aren't overcome by shame you can accept the idea that you might conceivably be turned on by all manner of people, things and situations, and you can choose to pursue those that you like the most and that don't hurt anybody. But shame can make even a slight amount of stimulation take on too much of an emotional load for the sufferer to be able to acknowledge.

That's reductive too, but what I really believe is true has whole books written about it. And there's still a lot of room for interpretation and further learning.

[defacto7]

40. I think lies about one's sexuality

are probably the most common of all lies. I think all men are attracted to men one way or another and most are attracted to women as well. But social pressure, culture and religion make it difficult to just live a life without worrying about being ridiculed, socially emasculated or made to feel ashamed. There's just way too much focus on sex and not enough focus on love. We should all just love each other and stop worrying about sexuality. But I suppose that's for generations past as well as far in the future because the mental, societal and emotional damage is far too deep.

[awoke_in_2003]

48. Wish I could rec a post. nt

[pansypoo53219]

45. i give this a DUH! so, gotta wonder about santorum + that kansas nitwit.

+ MAYBE mr dim duck dyNASTY.

[Kurovski]

52. it's like Honey Boo Boo says:

"Everybody is a little gay"

And what one resists...persists.

[shenmue]

53. It figures

[Kablooie]

59. If all the homophobes just relaxed and accepted who they really were ...

I wonder what the proportion of gay to straight people would be?

[Behind the Aegis]

60. I, for one, am sick of this crap.

There are some homophobes who are likely that way because they are gay or bisexual, but most homophobes are just bigots. They can hate us for many reasons, and only a handful is because they are denying their own sexuality issues. Does this apply to homophobic women? I have never seen that claim! No, this type of tripe is nothing more than a convenient excuse for some to make homophobic claims of their own, mainly that "most" homophobes are actually gays, so it is really gays responsible for homophobia. How fucked up is that!?!

This "study" is crap!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

63. Nonsense. Gays are not responsible for homophobia. Nothing in the study makes them responsible.

Granted that some homophobes are simply bigots, but some homophobic bigots are also denying their own homosexual interests, which is more complex.

Further, this study does not say that "most" homophobes are actually gay. It says nothing about proportions. It says that in samples that meet a questionaire criterion for homophobicity there are enough to cause a statistically significant response when measured as a group.

Even if most or all homophobes were gay, that wouldn't any way imply that gays were responsible for homophobia. It would still remain the fact that most gays are aware of and do not deny their sexuality to themselves, even if they must remain in the closet due to social pressures or laws like those in Nigeria, Uganda, and Putin's Russia. Those self-aware gays (the majority of gays) are not in any way responsible for homophobia.

Your failed logic in your is crap (which says nothing about you, just your post).

[Behind the Aegis]

66. No, the study is still crap.

Homophobes are simply bigots, and, as I said, yes, some are homophobic because they have same-sex feelings. However, this "study" is used by many (see above and throughout the history of DU) to imply many, if not most, homophobes are harboring gay feelings themselves. Any time some politician or what have you comes out with homophobic crap, it is inevitably followed by "somebody's in the closet" and others using this study as "proof."

"Even if most or all homophobes were gay, that wouldn't any way imply that gays were responsible for homophobia."

Bullshit! I have seen that reason used here. Rare as it may be, there are those who blame homophobia on gays and this study (notice there are no other like it) is used to imply gays are responsible for homophobia, because after all, according to them, homophobia is fear of gays, not dislike or hatred of gays and as is stated in the study and the excerpt:

Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!

It may be, as we have already BOTH said, the case in SOME individuals, but they and those who use this study have expanded it to be inclusive of all homophobes, intentional or not. And, as I said in the other post, which you didn't address, where are the women? This "study" is a joke and it allows people to continue to make false assumptions based on a crap study.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

67. "associated" does not mean "always" or "in everybody". It means there is a correlation. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

68. Tell that to the "good" people who use the study that way. n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

69. I can't. As you say, examples are rare & you haven't linked any. You can tell them too. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

70. There are examples throughout this thread. Have at it.

ETA: Wrong use of "rare." That was used in regards to something else, not people making claims that homophobes are secretly gay.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

71. Link to one. Ball is in your court, since it is your assertion. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

73. Not too difficult

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=82884

[Bernardo de La Paz]

74. That does not apply. Also, it was posted yesterday and you haven't done what you want others to do.

They do not state they are calling all homophobes homosexual. Only three people are mentioned.

Further, they only wonder about the named people and do not conclude about them.

Words have meanings. Use them for comprehension. Don't ignore them to feed confirmation bias.

It was posted about 20 hours ago and you have not explained to them the error of their ways (as you see it). Yet you are upset that somebody else is not doing your tasks for you. We see.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

76. Reply written to response

It doesn't apply because you say so?

There is a time limit? You keep changing the goalposts.

'They do not state they are calling all homophobes homosexual."

Didn't claim they did, but then you already knew this.

"Further, they only wonder about the named people and do not conclude about them. "

Which is exactly the problem I was discussing, but you have seemingly glossed over or willingly are ignoring.

"It was posted about 20 hours ago and you have not explained to them the error of their ways (as you see it). Yet you are upset that somebody else is not doing your tasks for you. We see. "

I see your little game now; it isn't clever.

You go ahead and keep defending a shitty study that people use to defend their ignorance and claims of "she doth protest too much" type of comments.

There is no time limit. No time limit was stated. There is no mention of time limits. The thread is still open, unlocked. You are not prevented from pouring as much fury down on them as you are attempting to do on me. You can reply to them to explain to them your theory about how "wondering" is immoral and a problem. Ball is in your court, still.

But you can continue to attempt to lead from behind. Let us see; you are mad at the wording the study uses which you interpret as meaning "all" and you are mad at the people who you think are thinking all homophobes are denying their own gayness, but you post against me. We see.

[Behind the Aegis]

77. Right, there was no time limit, yet YOU brought it up.

I didn't post "against" you, you responded to ME! Then you keep making excuses, one after another, and making claims that I never made.

The study is crap! The application of the study is crap! Those who continue to use this study to make claims that homophobes (notice, again, that it is always MALES) are secretly gay are lazy, and IMO are simply excusing homophobia by trying to redirect. Since I have been at DU, I have held this position and, while I don't confront every individual, I do make statements about it, which is what my first post in this thread did!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

79. You wrote "time limit". Not me. That was the first mention.

You wrote "There is a time limit? You keep changing the goalposts." Until then there was no mention of a time limit.

"post against" simply means that you have chosen to get into a long exchange with me instead of replying to the post about Santorum that you object to. Thus we end up with the frothy mixture in this subthread. In the meantime, after 20 hours and counting, the post you object still goes unchallenged by you.

There is no time limit. But the clock is ticking.

[Behind the Aegis]

81. You were the first to imply there was one with the 20-hour comment.

We see.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

84. There was not even an implication of a time limit.

Again, we apply logical analysis & reasoning and we see that I was simply remarking on the sequence of events.

You engaged with me, then complained about unspecified posts and demanded that I post to them to make your points for you. Then when you were called on it, you posted a link to one such post. At that point, and for some time after and perhaps even as of this writing, you had not yourself replied to the post you objected to to make your points yourself to that person.

Simply a sequence of events, with a notation of the intervening time in which you had not taken the opportunity to make the reply you demanded. It wasn't because you hadn't seen the post; after all, you complained about them and posted the link to it.

There was not even an implication of a time limit.

[Behind the Aegis]

85. Your post is nothing but convoluted misstating of events.

YOU engaged ME. Period. I made NO demand you address anyone. "Have at it" was a flippant response to your previous statement (""associated" does not mean "always" or "in everybody". It means there is a correlation. nt&quot .

"Then when you were called on it, you posted a link to one such post."

Fascinating. When I posted that link, your comment was:

That does not apply. Also, it was posted yesterday and you haven't done what you want others to do.

NOW, it is suddenly a 'proper' example. Whatever. We see.

Interesting how this has become about something entirely different. I should have called out our original strawman, but I didn't. My fault.

We see.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

86. No, it's your example. You're attempting to lead from behind with your example.

You want me or others to make your points in reply to the example you object to.

[William769]

88. I don't understand what your doing here.

You responded to BTA was that so you two could dance? He is happy to lead and doing a fine damn job of it and yet you don't want to seem to follow and you are damn sure not leading.

My suggestion to you is to either lead or follow or get off the dance floor. You are just taking up space otherwise.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

89. Study doesn't say that some homophobes being gay makes gays responsible for homophobia.

this type of tripe is nothing more than a convenient excuse for some to make homophobic claims of their own, mainly that "most" homophobes are actually gays, so it is really gays responsible for homophobia. How fucked up is that!?! This "study" is crap!

You can't use the study to blame gays for homophobia and you can't condemn the study when it concludes that homophobes (as a group, statistically) show a (statistically) significant amount of arousal from homosexual stimulation. Nor can you condemn the study because some people illogically use it to blame homophobia on gays. It is illogical to dismiss the study and call it "crap" because some people might misuse it. It's cheap to attack the messenger and the message because you don't like the messagees (the people who hear it and misuse it).

That's what I'm in this subthread for.

(BTA wrote) Tell that to the "good" people who use the study that way.

Leadership does not ask others to post their illogical points for them rather than replying themselves to posts they object to.

I'm also in this thread to help people understand a little better the science. If you look upthread you'll see where I took the time and effort to dig out the actual study and read parts of it to select and post a critical graph that shows the main conclusion. That makes me one of two people who delved into the science and posted about it.

[cinnabonbon]

92. That is honestly the impression I got from the study, too

It's an understated way of blaming gay people for the homophobia in society. "The people you say oppress you for being gay are gay themselves lolz!"

[noiretextatique]

78. i think it does apply to homophobic women

at least it applies to some of the female homophobes i know. i do believe internalizing homophobia can manifest in homophobic feelings and attitudes. it may not be the case with every homophobe, but i think there is a strong correlation.

[Behind the Aegis]

80. I already stated that some homophobes are that way because of same-sex feelings.

What irritates me are those who make this argument almost every time some homophobe speaks. Those who harbor same-sex feelings and are homophobes are rarer than those homophobes who are just bigoted assholes. Some crappy experiment doesn't prove the reverse. But, it is this "study" that produces shit like this:

homophobic men are gayer than Carson Kressley at a Barney’s season sale.

You honestly believe that?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

82. Your excerpt is not part of the study you object to. To be clear. So nobody thinks that it is. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

83. No, it is an exceprt from the article.

Last edited Thu Jan 16, 2014, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

[tblue]

65. "changes in penile circumference were monitored"

[CrawlingChaos]

93. I immediately thought of this

"Bush Wants to Make Romance in Bin Laden's Butt"

http://wonkette.com/237900/bush-wants-to-make-romance-in-bin-ladens-butt