Jump to content
Gian

homophobia and evolutionary psychology

Recommended Posts

In Ophiolite's defense, he's quite right IMO. I was being lazy (or, at least was prioritizing my time on other things), didn't want to be bothered fighting against such a ludicrous claim, and he was driving for consistency. That's something we should all strive for. I should have offered a better post as my first, or just remained silent altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well as far as I know we don't need to follow genetic impulses, but what Im talking about is repulsion at the actual sight of it.

This is an example of what I mean (from 03.55-06.44 and 09.33-end)

 

(thought I'd cut out the video; its thumbnail is a bit grim with how explicit it is lol)

 

I suspect that what these rugger players are feeling at the sight of gay intimacy goes deeper than social construction. They don't seem particularly badly disposed to gay men. As the guy at 05.19 says while accepting it, the actual sight of it seems to awaken some sort of revulsion which runs v deep.

 

I think the only fair way to determine the reasons for this observed disposition to be repulsed by the sight of homosexual acts, would be to eliminate any prior exposure to any form of socialisation, then observe a person's reaction when exposed to the act. Personally, I think it's quite obvious that it's a learnt reaction to the behaviour, rather than anything instinctive.

 

Perhaps slightly contrary to that; although I didn't feel overly uncomfortable watching the video, if I wasn't watching it for the sake of of the experiment, I'd definitely be inclined to look away or close down the video. But at the same time, I think if I saw two women who I didn't think were attractive (or ugly to be more blunt) doing the same thing, I'd be slightly repulsed by it and be inclined to close the video also. I think the fact is, when we recognise sexual behaviour, our brain acts rather like a database that's just been given information. Bare with me here: Rooted within us, our brains, is what we perceive as being sexually attractive. When this part of our brains is activated by the sight of a sexual act, our brain has embedded in it what it recognises as a good sexual partner (i.e. attractive persons). If the people carrying out the sexual act are not attractive to us, our brain not only gives no response to what it is receiving. On top of that, I think, is what we do more consciously. In our concious minds, we only want to associate sex, with that which is sexually pleasing. Witnessing the act being carried out by unattractive people, conflicts with the ideas you WANT to associate with sex/want to see while experiencing sex, because that's what pleases you. Therefore you make yourself feel repulsed, in order to maintain the sexual fantasy, what is enjoyable, if you will.

 

I just thought as I was typing this; maybe it's helpful to imagine it from a homosexual person's perspective. I think it's very uncommon (although probably exists), where gay people are repulsed by heterosexual acts, and most likely because it's so common to see heterosexual acts, they're exposed to it so regularly e.g. said gay person probably has straight parents, siblings etc. Aswell as this, I'm fairly certain gay people feel the same repulsion as straight people do, when witnessing two unattractive/ugly or what have you people, perform sexual acts. Therefore, if that can be proven, surely that eliminates the idea of homosexuality being instinctively repulsive to heterosexual people?

Edited by Iota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems subjects are getting confused by a couple posters (I'm being lazy and not re-reading to see who) are equating aversion to homosexual stimuli to homophobia. The two are not in the least bit equal. A feeling of disgust toward an unusual visual stimuli and an unfounded hatred of a particular group are two separate phenomena. Homophobia can be found in homosexuals which should not be seen if aversion to homosexual images is equivalent to homophobia.

 

As to the scientific, or evolutionary to be more specific, study of homophobic and if they're innate, first you would have to find a good way to measure homophobia. Which is actually, at least last time I looked, a pretty heated topic in social and sexual psychology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have mixed them a little. When I was talking about the homophobia & arousal experiment, I mentioned that a person's opinions about homosexuals are malleable (environmental). However, once I read the summary, I realized that they were measuring homophobia as a form of anxiety or discomfort (phobia), not as an attitude toward a group of people.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

...I will also ADMIT that as to my above story of my confrontation with two drunken Gay Men....their BEHAVIOR SPECIFIC TO GAY MEN
ACTING OVERLY EFFEMINATE...seemed to trigger some Genetically stored violent tendencies and emotions that are not associated to a person being
Homophobic....as I am NOT...but rather specific to Alpha Male Dominance specific to Clan Survival and probably created to protect the Clans Breeding
Population.

That entire account is limited to cultural, not genetic, factors. This is especially evident in your ascription of “effeminate” to behaviors found specifically among men in many cultures, including those much closer to "Clan Breeding Populations" than your own.

Do young people acting overly aged trigger such violent reactions? Old people acting overly young? Female people acting overly masculine? People acting overly lefthanded (no joke, that is a trigger for avoidance reactions in many cultures)?



Takehome: your violent reactions to cultural specifics are not genetically programmed. Violent reaction to cultural betrayal in a general sense may be genetic (or may not, my guess it is) but what exactly constitutes such betrayal is culture specific and learned.



 

well until quite recently there wasn't. With very high mortality rates until the end of the 18th century men and women had to go
on attempting to procreate all their lives in order to have 3 or 4 children who survived to maturity

Three or four surviving children per
couple would be a fairly high rate of population increase, not a shortage of breeding humans.

And any shortage would be a shortage of breeding women, not men. AFAIK at no time in human history has any large population of humans been
limited in its reproductive rate by a shortage of breeding males. The overcapacity there is an order of magnitude. There is no visible selection
pressure there at all – you must present a serious argument with evidence for that, not an assumption.

 

 

The two are not in the least bit equal. A feeling of disgust toward an unusual visual stimuli and an unfounded hatred of a particular group are
two separate phenomena.

That is not necessarily so in the case of homophobia in humans. A feeling of disgust triggered by the sight of two men kissing, for example, is not at all separate from homopbobia in US culture.

 

 

Homophobia can be found in homosexuals which should not be seen if aversion to homosexual images is equivalent to homophobia.

Homophobia is found disproportionately in homosexually oriented men in the US, and is often expressed as an aversion reaction to homosexual images and other public visual stimuli so strong as to be labeled violent. The two - unusually strong aversion and homophobia - are at least correlated.

 

Any assumption that homosexually oriented people are immune to cultural conditioning and influence is unfounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gian and Pwagen, I removed the suggestion that you were "brainwashed by the media" because I wasn't trying to convey a stigma. I was merely suggesting that the media has given you superficial ideas about male homosexuality. Even if they're simply men exhibiting feminine sexuality, men that don't specifically desire to put "the pee pee in the pooper," the ways in which they can interact sexually are limited by their anatomy. Suffice it to say, a repulsion specific to anal sex probably wouldn't prevent them from engaging in homosexual activity with one another.

 

As was said:

Icky has nothing to do with sexual behavior being good or bad, in fact if it's not "icky" you're probably not doing it correctly.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Almost certainly not. Not all people who witness two people of the same gender expressing love for one another find it revolting, even after puberty. No, the hatred is taught/learned.

 

Probably because they were mocking you and baiting you, not because of anything to do with their sexuality. Your (very long) post is quite moot IMO, but thanks for sharing.

 

Hatred is something learned. We have a genetic predisposition to categorize things and to see us/them dichotomies, but we must be taught which groups to treat differently and we must be taught which to hate.

 

Human children are not born racist. Human children are not born sexist. Likewise, human children are not born homophobic. It is learned and reinforced by the society and community around us... It is nurtured, not natured.

You know...my post is describing a FEELING that came over me for a split second. It is not like I reacted or even shouted...and this FEELINGS violent ferocity surprised even me as there are very little to perhaps no situations that I could not possibly handle either from a physical stand point to a mental one.

 

The extreme violent nature of this split second feeling goes against my very open and disciplined nature so I am fairly certain this feeling was something that came from some deep seated trigger...and I would bet my bottom dollar it is Genetic in it's nature...given the person I am and in what I believe.

 

Split Infinity

 

You mean the one and only true Gay? The Gay Men that we hold above all other gay men? The Gay Marriage that is superior to all other forms of gay marriage?

 

It is a FACT...that not all people that engage in Homosexual activity....and p.s...I could care less what anyone else prefers to do sexually....are Genetically predisposed to be Gay.

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Split Infinity, the harder you dig the deep the hole becomes dude....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a FACT...that not all people that engage in Homosexual activity....and p.s...I could care less what anyone else prefers to do sexually....are Genetically predisposed to be Gay.

 

It seems like a reasonable claim, but you still haven't properly defined Gay. Until Gay has been properly defined, anything could be Gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an old friend who says he knows absolutely for sure he is not gay, he tried it and didn't like it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The extreme violent nature of this split second feeling goes against my very open and disciplined nature so I am fairly certain this feeling was something that came from some deep seated trigger...and I would bet my bottom dollar it is Genetic in it's nature...

 

I don't discount that this is what you personally think or believe, but that doesn't negate the facts at hand. You are almost certainly mistaken in your assumption that this was some genetic response, and that won't change no matter her forcefully you assert the contrary. Your personal sense of certainty and gut feeling matters not one iota in discussions of this nature.

 

Phobias are learned. They are culture specific. There is no mechanism by which genetics would play a role here, nor is there any mechanism by which such a phobia would be selected.

 

The closest you might possibly get to making a logical argument that genetics were involved here is that perhaps you are genetically predisposed to react really strongly (a few standard deviations from the mean) against groups that have been culturally stigmatized as somehow inferior or sub-human. Perhaps you have a tendency to more forcefully react to ingroup/outgroup cues, and perhaps you have some sort of tendency toward over response toward outsiders... outsiders who have been defined as such through social learning. That's a really massive stretch, though, and some gigantic "ifs."

 

Much more likely is you're mistaken and merely trying too hard to rationalize a response that you had... a response to a situation that has caused you to question your sense of self and your own character as a man. Much more likely is the fact that you were disappointed in your response to these two people after a show one night, and your response has caused you to question who you are... It's opened up questions inside yourself regarding whether or not you truly are the calm, level-headed, disciplined guy you wish to be.

 

Much more likely you are (either consciously or unconsciously) uncomfortable with how you felt inside that night... uncomfortable with the anger and rage they elicited in you... and this dissonance is causing you to search for other explanations for your response... no matter how silly or far fetched they may be, and all because you reacted one night in a way that was contrary to the traits within yourself that you prize and hold dear.

 

Ultimately, I think your claims that there is some sort of genetic homophobia that drove all this are little more than a scapegoat to help you feel good about yourself again.

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't discount that this is what you personally think or believe, but that doesn't negate the facts at hand. You are almost certainly mistaken in your assumption that this was some genetic response, and that won't change no matter her forcefully you assert the contrary. Your personal sense of certainty and gut feeling matters not one iota in discussions of this nature.

 

Phobias are learned. They are culture specific. There is no mechanism by which genetics would play a role here, nor is there any mechanism by which such a phobia would be selected.

 

The closest you might possibly get to making a logical argument that genetics were involved here is that perhaps you are genetically predisposed to react really strongly (a few standard deviations from the mean) against groups that have been culturally stigmatized as somehow inferior or sub-human. Perhaps you have a tendency to more forcefully react to ingroup/outgroup cues, and perhaps you have some sort of tendency toward over response toward outsiders... outsiders who have been defined as such through social learning. That's a really massive stretch, though, and some gigantic "ifs."

 

Much more likely is you're mistaken and merely trying too hard to rationalize a response that you had... a response to a situation that has caused you to question your sense of self and your own character as a man. Much more likely is the fact that you were disappointed in your response to these two people after a show one night, and your response has caused you to question who you are... It's opened up questions inside yourself regarding whether or not you truly are the calm, level-headed, disciplined guy you wish to be.

 

Much more likely you are (either consciously or unconsciously) uncomfortable with how you felt inside that night... uncomfortable with the anger and rage they elicited in you... and this dissonance is causing you to search for other explanations for your response... no matter how silly or far fetched they may be, and all because you reacted one night in a way that was contrary to the traits within yourself that you prize and hold dear.

 

Ultimately, I think your claims that there is some sort of genetic homophobia that drove all this are little more than a scapegoat to help you feel good about yourself again.

 

After looking at this from another perspective I think I possibly know now why I reacted so.

 

If there is one thing that I place value upon it's respect.

 

In this case as I have many other times when instead of calling my security to throw a person or persons out of a show...I went the extra mile and walked right up to them....this by the way drives my security crew chief to drink...and rather than confront such a person or persons violently or negatively in a manner that will just escalate things...I offered to get them drinks and asked them with real concern what was bothering them.

 

Now as I said...in 99.9999% of the times I have done this it calms the situation down and everyone just laughs it off and people have a good time. That last .0001% of the time usually happens if they are either completely WASTED or their Girlfriend is in our dressing room and if that is the case...well...I don't blame them! LOL!

 

In this case I went the extra mile and was surprised at their reaction as it was one of TOTAL DISRESPECT.

 

Such disrespect has never before or ever again presented itself and now that I think about it...I believe this is where the issue exists.

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a much more plausible interpretation of those events, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a much more plausible interpretation of those events, IMO.

 

Still...regardless of whether it was disrespect that drove my emotions and this out of nowhere violent feeling...I have to admit to myself...when that guy started talking in a sing songy voice and add to that the neck jerk and the...talk to the hand circle motion...for a split second...I saw RED...and I mean BLOOD RED.

 

I didn't react but believe me...if I had...I would be posting this from a lockup somewhere.

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK...I hate the fact that I am even going to say what I am about to say...but since there is a scientific basis to it...I am going to say it. When I first read your above post I misread it because my damn CAT jumped on my lap top and distracted me. I thought I had seen the word...Homosexuality instead of your first word in the above quoted statement which is...Homophobia.

 

I quoted you and actually started typing...this...WOW! And exactly what science are you basing this upon?

 

I then noticed the first word was Homophobia and I quickly deleted my reply...until now as I have just put it back out there.

 

I live in Massachusetts where Gay Marriage is Legal and there have not been any issues as far as what some said would be...THE END OF THE WORLD!...if our state went ahead and legalized it. Obviously the world is still turning and Gay Marriage is not even anything a straight person as myself even thinks about on any day to day basis.

 

Now here is the thing...and I would ask those who are Gay or have family members who are Gay to bear with me a bit as I have no issues with a person who is Gay.

 

I am a Male Internationally touring and recording Musician...and I will be going back on tour in a few weeks...that has done and just about seen it all. I absolutely LOVE everything about WOMEN and in fact...if I was born a woman I would probably be a Lesbian. Despite this fact as well as the fact that I am straight...because of the fact being Good Looking and in great shape is kind of a prerequisite for performing in a band of the level that I have done shows with Ozzie, Black Sabbath, Heart, Aerosmith, Robin Trower, Tool, Staind, Audio Slave....and many many more.

 

We were VERY big in the late 80's and early 90's and although I am wealthy and no longer do super long tours...I am a bit older know and the money is just no longer a driving force to have me out on the road for 8 months to 2 years! LOL!

 

Anyways...because of who I am and what I do...I have to keep myself in top physical condition. I am 6 ft ! inch...a muscular 225 lbs...Dirty Blonde hair with Blue Green eyes and I am considered Very Good Looking. I am not boasting as such things for us in the music industry are things that are talked about by us and to us from everyone from the Marketing Group of our Label all the way to MY MOM...telling me..."You should wear those Black Leather Pants with the Silver Studs going all the way up the outside of your leg...those pants make you butt look good. LOL! NO $#@^!

 

So since I am used to being talked to and labeled as such a Marketing Tool...one would think that I would not have an issue with a couple of GAY MEN attempting to slap my ass as they make cat calls as I was coming off stage at the end of the show after an encore. These two Gay Men had won Back Stage Passes from a Local Radio Station and they were allowed with others to watch the show from Stage Right.

 

Now I also on occasion work with members of the U.S. Military as my Dad is Military and my Mom is..."CIVILIAN" as well as I am..."CIVILIAN" in the manner the quotes denote. I have done this other...JOB...from time to time over the course of several decades and I was recruited right out of High School. The fact that I was also an International Touring and SIGNED Musician by my early 20's sweetened up the pot for the people I occasionally do work for. After all...what better way to get in and out of a Country without raising suspicion than playing in a Rocking Band?

 

So these two Gay Men started to try to grab my ass and at first I just laughed it off and I am a VERY patient and tolerant person who is also trained and if need be capable of great violence...although I HATE violence and if I do my Other JOB correctly...there is no violence asI am brought in as a Problem Solver. So needless to say I had been in and experienced much worse situations than a couple of drunk Gay Men trying to grab my ass and calling me sweety and honey and a few other much more R-Rated words. I laughed it off and went about my business....UNTIL...one of the gay men called me a HOMOPHOBE and then in a sing song overly Gay voice....you know...the kind of voice that some Gay Men purposely obtain just to irritate Straight Men for whatever reason.

 

The thing was I had not given these two any reason to do what they were now doing and this still was NO WHERE NEAR any level that a person would consider my breaking point. I used some of my other...JOB skills and walked up to them as they had to stay in a back stage roped off area that was open and our dressing room which was very large had it's door open as usual and they could see me and I could hear and see them.

 

I walked up to the rope separating us and said..."Is there something about me that threatens you or have I done something to you that I don't seem to know about...because this is a Party and I am sure all the people here and that includes you two Gentlemen....would be much happier having some of the great food here and a few drinks than arguing over something stupid...RIGHT?.....99.999% of the time...THIS WORKS....along with the fact I am NOT the person anyone would want to throw down with...RIGHT?....WRONG!

 

Next thing I know the....more effeminate of the two men is screaming out loud....and LISPING QUITE POSSIBLY TO A GREATER EXTENT THAN I THOUGHT POSSIBLE FOR HUMAN SPEECH...."You just want to get us thrown out because we are GAY and you pretend to be Homophobic but what you REALLY ARE IS A CLOSET QUEER!....then he turned around bent over and grabbed both cheeks and said to me..."YOU AIN'T NEVER GETTIN' ANY OF THIS BABY!"....and he did this said this and rose doing that ghetto thing by jerking his neck sideways without tilting his head and making a circle with his arm and hand presented in a traffic cop STOP hand signal....and then snapped his fingers.

 

Now here I am...a non-homophobic straight man who supports Gay Marriage as well as I am secure in my sexuality thus there is no amount of words anyone could use upon me that would make me react or be ashamed or embarrassed in some thought that someone MIGHT THINK I AM GAY...because neither do I care whether a person thinks that about me as well as given who I am as well as how I act and handle myself....if anyone here knew me....just to present the idea that I might be gay would be laughable given my extreme interest in ALL THAT IS FEMALE...LOL!

 

So at that point I did what I should have done from the start....tell my security guy's to escort them out. Because my security guy's know what I sometimes do as well as what I am capable of...I am, allowed a great deal more leeway compared to any other of the guy's in the band as my security guy's know....I like to handle things myself and I feel you create more problems by throwing someone out as they will perceive they were wrong or slighted than if I was to take a couple minutes and do what I did by talking to these IDIOTS....and as I said...it usually works...99.999% of the time.

 

Now here is what I want to get off my chest. As progressive as I believe myself to be....as well as the fact I support Gay Rights and Gay Marriage...for some deeply seated TRIGGER in my GENETIC MEMORY....I am admitting that when that Gay Man did his Bend Over and Ain't Gettin' Any speech with the Limp Hand Motions and the Neck Jerk and ESPECIALLY THE EFFEMINATE SING SONG VOICE....for a moment...and folks....I HAD NO CONTROL OVER MY GENETIC MEMORY BASED REACTION...of which that reaction was limited to just a THOUGHT and not any PHYSICAL REACTION...as I am just too disciplined to react in a physical manner just because I might get angry or have adrenaline sent pumping through my veins....

 

......in that MOMENT....I visualized snapping his neck like a twig and then turning into a Spin Kick that would break the other guy's sternum....and then the moment was gone and I was back to being me.

 

Now THERE IT IS! The question remains...was I having such a moment because these two were acting like ass#@&%$? Or was I having this moment as a Genetic Memory response to the Physical Actions and Audio Stimulus that pushed me over the top?

 

I will hold back my answer for now and PLEASE....do not judge me too harshly. I am not that GUY...but I can be...I just choose not to be.

 

Split Infinity

Im pretty certain this is a science forum, not The View.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With natural selection, it always boils down to what selection pressures they're under in that particular environment. A strategy that works in one palce may not work in another.

 

 

Sexologists have frequently made use of a technique called penile plethysmography. Here's a famous example, an experiment conducted by Adams, Wright, & Lohr, "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" I haven't read the full summary, but I've heard of the experiment.

I never considered that those results might be explained by population genetics. Such 'degaying' genes, if they exist, might appear in populations with more gay genes. However, I doubt such an hypothesis would prevail. Homophobia, in the typical sense of the word, seems to be a malleable trait that will change depending on environmental influences.

 

response to erotic imagery - - - - unchangeable, perhaps genetic

response to sexual interaction - - unchangeable, perhaps genetic

opinions about homosexuals - - malleable, probably environmental, probably not genetic

 

Of course, the fact that it's malleable doesn't mean it cannot be influenced by genetics. We are all influenced by the environment AND genetics. However, it may be a higher order phenomenon with many contributing factors, thus it may elude such simple descriptions.

 

 

Thanks for the reference, still reading it. The guys who were said to be homophobic but also aroused by homosexuality may simply be more highly sexed 'Alpha'males for whom ANY mention of sex arouses them. Plus you'd have to exclude the effect on sexual arousal of other emotions, eg fear or anger. But it may be that this is the point; maybe a potential and genetic response to homosexuality also triggers an equally genetic, endogenous response which is homophobic. Still doesn't show if homophobia is nature or nurture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reference, still reading it. The guys who were said to be homophobic but also aroused by homosexuality may simply be more highly sexed 'Alpha'males for whom ANY mention of sex arouses them.

 

According to the graphs, they were (roughly) equally aroused by the other videos. The only significant difference was for the homosexual video.

 

I have a concern with the way they selected the sample. They selected them based on a homo/hetero questionairre. In all fields of psychology, a problem with such surveys is the possibility of biased responding.

Suppose a man is not entirely heterosexual, but he's not homophobic. Since he's okay with it, he admits it, and he doesn't get selected for the study.

On the other hand, the homophobic group could be full of lesser heterosexuals simply because of a homophobic responding bias.

 

Plus you'd have to exclude the effect on sexual arousal of other emotions, eg fear or anger. But it may be that this is the point; maybe a potential and genetic response to homosexuality also triggers an equally genetic, endogenous response which is homophobic. Still doesn't show if homophobia is nature or nurture

 

They get there in the "Discussion" section.

 

It's an interesting study, but it's still a bit outdated (1996). There may be newer research on the subject.

 

But it may be that this is the point; maybe a potential and genetic response to homosexuality also triggers an equally genetic, endogenous response which is homophobic. Still doesn't show if homophobia is nature or nurtur

 

That would be more fitting with a psychological mechanism. My alternative interpretation, though it is totally baseless, is that these 'degaying' genes appeared in response to the gay genes.

 

It would proceed like this.

First, the gay genes appear. Suppose they persist because they are sexually antagonistic. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm

After these gay genes appear, a 'degaying' gene may finally have some function if it makes the borderline-case men more likely to reproduce.

 

According to this model, we would expect the presence of 'degaying' genes to roughly coincide with the presence gay genes.

 


 

NOTE: The term "gay gene" probably isn't correct. A gene is a DNA sequence that codes for a polypeptide (polypeptides compose proteins). Genes can be contrasted with non-coding DNA. Most human variation actually lies in the non-coding DNA, not the genes. I use the term "gay gene" because I don't know a better term.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only occured to me just yesterday to actually look on pubmed for some scientific literature on this topic, seems I was infected by the bad reasoning e-virus present in this thread.

 

I think it is important to point out that exposure to (or awareness of) homophobia and what causes one to adopt a homophobic mentality should be considered separately. I can't stress this enough, and I think people in this thread may have been arguing (without saying) for either or, or perhaps both. I think this can lead to confusion, especially when considering the homophobic baby line of reasoning (which btw, is not evidence that homophobia isn't genetic).

 

I found some literature which provides suggestive evidence that attempts to explain both the contribution of genetics and evironment to the variance of the trait homophobia in a population. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/

 

They basically just looked at MZ DZ correlations to calculate Heritability, and the more specific components (ACDE). The takehome is that there is substantial contribution from both genetics and environment, and it is not heavily one or the other as people have suggested here. Also, it is very important to remember that things are not so simple as they appear and can't always be simply categorised as being "learned/taught" or the opposite.

 

These results suggest that the factors which cause anyone individual in a population (assuming population from study is representative) to adopt a homophobic mentality can be of genetic and environmental nature, and that both genetics and environmental factors play important roles (if you want values go to the paper).

 

This evidence trumps pretty much all reasoning used in this thread, it can be critiqued however.

 

Other interesting observations (mentioned in the paper):

1) homophobia prevalence is higher in males than in females

2) homophobia prevalence is higher in heterosexuals than homosexuals

3) the term "Homosexuality" will be interpreted by most as a reference to gay males and not to females

4) Heterosexuals have different attitudes towards gay males and females, with gay females being viewed in a less negative light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will read the study. However, showing that it's genetic it has genetic contributions still does not reveal the specific means by which these genetics were selected for. For all we know, each contributing factor served a unique purpose. The emerging homophobia may be a more extreme form of expression that is totally unnecessary from a natural selection standpoint.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will read the study. However, showing that it's genetic still does not reveal the specific means by which these genetics were selected for. For all we know, each contributing factor served a unique purpose. The emerging homophobia may be a more extreme form of expression that is totally unnecessary from a natural selection standpoint.

T

 

I will read the study. However, showing that it's genetic still does not reveal the specific means by which these genetics were selected for. For all we know, each contributing factor served a unique purpose. The emerging homophobia may be a more extreme form of expression that is totally unnecessary from a natural selection standpoint.

"It is genetic" is a bad phrase. "Genetics contributes" is a better one.

 

Explaining selection is a difficult feat. Detection of selection can be challenging also, and it usually requires DNA sequences (in this case we don't know what the contributing genes are, so no DNA to work with). It will be a while before we can provide reasonable explanations for selection that is backed with adequate evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This evidence trumps pretty much all reasoning used in this thread, it can be critiqued however.

It agrees with and supports my earlier posts.

 

 

Other interesting observations (mentioned in the paper):

- - - -

2) homophobia prevalence is higher in heterosexuals than homosexuals

I doubt that, or at least its implications as stated here. I do not think the classification of people into "homosexual" and "heterosexual" is reasonable in this context unless much more carefully done than it appears to have been, and the correlation of homophobia with tendency toward same-sex arousal is too well established elsewhere.

 

All cultural conditioning takes advantage of our genetic nature. That does not make cultural traits or features "genetic".

Edited by overtone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that, or at least its implications as stated here. I do not think the classification of people into "homosexual" and "heterosexual" is reasonable in this context unless much more carefully done than it appears to have been, and the correlation of homophobia with tendency toward same-sex arousal is too well established elsewhere.

 

All cultural conditioning takes advantage of our genetic nature. That does not make cultural traits or features "genetic".

 

Indeed. The last paragraph of "Measures" describes how they measured sexualty. They basically just asked them, "Hetero, homo, or bi?"

On one hand, the data casts a lot of doubt on the idea that gays frequently have "inverted homophobia" that they project onto other gays.

On the other hand, what I read had nothing to say on the arousal tendencies or internal conflicts of homophobic people.

 

Also, in the second last paragraph of the introduction, they mention the twin studies showing just how much genetics contribute to personality. They reason from there that homophobia may have genetic contributions as well.

In other words, it's nothing special when a personality trait has genetic contributions. However, I would not know if 30-50% genetics is more than what should be anticipated.

 

By the way, do you know of other studies linking homophobia with same-sex arousal? I only know of the one that I already linked.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a reasonable claim, but you still haven't properly defined Gay. Until Gay has been properly defined, anything could be Gay.

 

When I use the word Gay I am using it to describe a person who is Genetically predisposed to be attracted to the Opposite Sex. Now there are people who profess to be Gay that are not so disposed but engage in Homosexual activity by choice.

 

As far as whether a person is straight, gay or Bi I could care less...and as long as no one attempts to tell me what to do I have no issues.

 

Split Infinity

 

Indeed. The last paragraph of "Measures" describes how they measured sexualty. They basically just asked them, "Hetero, homo, or bi?"

On one hand, the data casts a lot of doubt on the idea that gays frequently have "inverted homophobia" that they project onto other gays.

On the other hand, what I read had nothing to say on the arousal tendencies or internal conflicts of homophobic people.

 

Also, in the second last paragraph of the introduction, they mention the twin studies showing just how much genetics contribute to personality. They reason from there that homophobia may have genetic contributions as well.

In other words, it's nothing special when a personality trait has genetic contributions. However, I would not know if 30-50% genetics is more than what should be anticipated.

 

By the way, do you know of other studies linking homophobia with same-sex arousal? I only know of the one that I already linked.

 

As far as the very last line in your above post which I have quoted...there is a very old joke that is relative to it.

 

The Joke.

 

A Red Neck comes out of a bar and after seeing two men kissing each other...walks up to them and in one punch knocks one of the Gay men out cold and he then puts the other man in a head lock and starts punching him in the face and as he keeps punching as he holds on to him...he screams this between every punch...."I Hate you! Because your GAY! And your a Queer!...And i'm gonna kick your ass!...Cause your a Fag!...and...and...your kinda attractive.

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It agrees with and supports my earlier posts.

 

 

I doubt that, or at least its implications as stated here. I do not think the classification of people into "homosexual" and "heterosexual" is reasonable in this context unless much more carefully done than it appears to have been, and the correlation of homophobia with tendency toward same-sex arousal is too well established elsewhere.

 

All cultural conditioning takes advantage of our genetic nature. That does not make cultural traits or features "genetic".

I think the observed higher prevalence of homophobia in heterosexuals is not doubtful, I believe there were other supportive references along with the same observation in the study population. I do agree that the blunt categories "homo, hetero and bi" are not ideal, but I think one can still draw a rather loose conclusion nonetheless. The criticism of the terms "homo, hetero and bi" should only go so far imo, sure they are blunt tools and do not allow for fine-tuned descriptions, but they still a useful measure when considered as self reported sexual identity. In this respect, the terms are useful since they are used very frequently in social settings.

 

With respect to the correlation of sexual arousal to homophobia vs the study I presented. Have you considered that the conclusions drawn from both studies are compatible with each other? it seems you are comparing apples and oranges, the population described as sexually aroused by same-sex activity vs "hetero, bi and homo" populations require their comparability to be investigated via experimentation. If you are to deem the conclusions doubtful, then you need to provide adequate reasoning and support.

 

To Monday: inverted homophobia? what's that.

Arousal tendencies and internal conflicts are other areas to explore, though those aroused by same-sex won't necessarily have or seek out same sex themselves.

 

I'll rephrase your sentence to "It is nothing special that genetics allows for personality". The authors didn't mean that. Genetics allows for all traits and phenotype, but how much can it explain about the variance of the trait or phenotype? It is an important difference. I am actually a little surprised that 30-50% genetics can explain the populations variance of personality, but I think it is quite difficult to anticipate the contribution amount with a reasonable level of certainty.

 

I haven't searched for it. It ain't hard to search, try google scholar, or go into pubmed and search in there (try both PMC and pubmed databases, maybe others too). I am somewhat less interested in arousal, as arousal doesn't necessarily mean an individual will actually engage in same-sex behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the correlation of sexual arousal to homophobia vs the study I presented. Have you considered that the conclusions drawn from both studies are compatible with each other?

 

In the study "Is Homophobia Associated with Heterosexual Arousal," they selected a sample of exclusive heterosexuals who scored 6 on a scale of 1-6. Then, they separated these heterosexuals into a homophobic group and non-homophobic group for comparison. My criticism was:

 

"I have a concern with the way they selected the sample. They selected them based on a homo/hetero questionairre. In all fields of psychology, a problem with such surveys is the possibility of biased responding.

Suppose a man is not entirely heterosexual, but he's not homophobic. Since he's okay with it, he admits it, and he doesn't get selected for the study.

On the other hand, the homophobic group could be full of lesser heterosexuals simply because of a homophobic responding bias."

 

To Monday: inverted homophobia? what's that.

 

"Inverted homophobia" is a term applied to Catholic preists. The idea is that they hate gays so much because they are struggling with their own homosexuality. It's been posited that people with atypical sexuality (for example, gay men) may have become preists to avoid persecution and/or marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests#Estimating_numbers_of_gay_priests

 

I'll rephrase your sentence to "It is nothing special that genetics allows for personality". The authors didn't mean that. Genetics allows for all traits and phenotype, but how much can it explain about the variance of the trait or phenotype? It is an important difference. I am actually a little surprised that 30-50% genetics can explain the populations variance of personality, but I think it is quite difficult to anticipate the contribution amount with a reasonable level of certainty.

 

Okay, yes. The genetics aren't necessarily genetics for homophobia, as these data give no insight into the function these genetics had in our evolution. They're merely genetics that allow for homophobia. For all we know, these same genetics would manifest as heterophobia in an heterophobic culture, hypothetically.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.