link established between homophobia and homosexual arousal

[Minty]

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much" William Shakespeare, Hamlet

I couldn't have put it better myself

Minty. xx

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Slacktivist also had something to say on it:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2007/10/gay-hatin-gos-1.html

Gay-Hatin' Gospel (pt. 2)

The Bible gives us the word "shibboleth,"* but the Bible is more than a book of shibboleths. So how did gay-hatin' come to be the "most-common perception" of Christianity?
Theory No. 2: Inner Demons
This theory has the virtue of being true. Or, at least, of being true in some cases -- some very notable, high-profile cases.
The idea here is that many of the loudest, angriest and most single-minded preachers of the anti-gay gospel doth protest too much. They are self-loathing closet cases, denouncing homosexuality because they are homosexuals and they hate this about themselves. From Roy Cohn to Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, there are dozens of verifiable examples of this dynamic -- and many, many more suspected but unconfirmed cases.
Only Sayin' provides an excellent summary of this theory, along with a rundown of some of the more notable recent examples, in a post titled, "Why Social Conservatives Can't Keep It in Their Pants.
But for a succinct summary of this dynamic, you can't beat this from Ted Haggard himself:

"There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life."​

So, clearly, this is a real phenomenon. We've seen so many examples of this lately, so many self-loathing closet cases exposed as members of the anti-gay leadership, that it reminds me of that scene in The Man Who Was Thursday, when the protagonist succeeds in infiltrating the secret society of anarchists only to look around the table and realize that every single member of its leadership is, like him, an undercover police officer
Yet despite the startlingly large number of cases, it's surely not quite as pervasive as Thursday's dilemma. It can't be true that every officer in the anti-gay army is secretly a member of the group it seeks to oppose. The religious right/social conservative movement certainly seems to include a larger-than-average number of closeted homosexuals in its leadership, but even if the movement is gayer than Disney World, we're still only talking about a minority of its leaders and followers (a significant minority, but still less than half).
A significant number of leading social conservatives also seem to be warring against inner demons that have nothing to do with homosexuality. These folks are tormented by an impressive variety of freaky heterosexual appetites. Consider Sen. Vitter's alleged diaper-play with prostitutes. Or the deeply sad case of the former aide to Jerry Falwell who was found dead due to a baroque autoerotic asphyxia mishap.** The interesting thing about these folks is that instead of lashing out at those who share their particular appetites, like Ted Haggard did, they turn their animosity toward homosexuals too. I can't begin to explain the psychology at work in this bit of substitution, but in their case it seems something like a mix of the inner demon theory and the safe target theory is at work.
The repressed and tortured psyches of Ted Haggard and David Vitter also don't explain why so many have been willing to follow these leaders in their "warring against" their inner demons. They can't all be self-loathing closet cases. Nor does this theory explain why others with apparently milquetoast, plain-vanilla sexual appetites -- people like Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell -- should be even more vociferous in their condemnations of the Big Gay Menace. For them it seems less a matter of self-loathing and projection than simply your garden-variety hatin' on the outsider.
So while I'm certain that the inner demons theory is valid in many particular cases, I think it's more of a contributing factor than a sufficient explanation of the entire phenomenon of gay-hatin's newfound prominence as the central perception of American Christianity.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Lol, they feel attracted to other men and so lash out violently in their confusion. It makes perfect sense.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Actually.... so what? They got aroused. Doesn't mean anything. It happens to me when I'm not even thinking about anything sometimes. Embarrassing, sure. But expose someone to something like that, what do you think the result is gonna be? Doesn't nervousness play into this too? Like, "Oh I don't want to see this" kinda thing. Flight or fight response, baby. Besides.... if that's your choice, fine. But leave me out of it. I don't need to see something as.... well, unnatural as that.

And Maynard, maybe we're just afraid taht we'll look stupid? Homosexuality is kinda a delicate subject, ya know. And an embarrassing one for a guy.

 

[Verv]

So what?

I can take two approaches to this:

This is the approach that leftists use at studies demonstrating sexual promiscuity and lack of monogamy amongst homosexuals: "The report is flawed."

However, this is my approach:

Whatever. I am not sexually aroused by men and I condemn homosexuality. I do not consider myself a homophobic, though, as I do not fear them. There is nothing to fear of differences.

 

[TheManeki]

So what?

I can take two approaches to this:

This is the approach that leftists use at studies demonstrating sexual promiscuity and lack of monogamy amongst homosexuals: "The report is flawed."

However, this is my approach:

Whatever. I am not sexually aroused by men and I condemn homosexuality. I do not consider myself a homophobic, though, as I do not fear them. There is nothing to fear of differences.

I'm glad you're not taking the former approach, because some of us here are scientists and would be very interested to hear the specific issues you have with their methodology. If you then had no specific issues, just "the evidence doesn't agree with my beliefs," then I'd be disappointed that you had no real criticism. And I'd hate to be so disappointed first thing in the morning.

 

[selfinflikted]

... And I'd hate to be so disappointed first thing in the morning.

You might be in the wrong place if you're not looking for disappointment

On a more serious note, my personal observations in my own life have led me to the same conclusions as those found in the study presented in the OP. In fact, I used to be one of those people who verbally bashed and lashed out against gay people (read: homophobe) in hopes that such a facade would conceal my own struggles with homosexuality. Later in life, I learned to get over myself and just come out of the closet and say to hell with those who thought or would think ill of me. I personally know others who have done or are doing the same thing, in an attempt to cover up their own homosexuality. I think this is just a knee-jerk reaction by those who are questioning their sexuality, however wrong it may be.

Also, personally speaking, I think that being a "homophobe" earlier in my life was a way for me to deal with the jealousy I held over those who did have the courage to come out. I was much too chicken in my adolescence to come clean with myself, much less my friends and family, and I think lashing out against gays was a way for me to deal with my own insecurities and the fact that I didn't have the balls to come out myself. If only I knew then what I know now ...

 

[stan1980]

Whatever. I am not sexually aroused by men and I condemn homosexuality. I do not consider myself a homophobic, though, as I do not fear them. There is nothing to fear of differences.

Time to get the knives out...

First of all, you may not consider yourself homophobic, but I'd guess most other people would by the very fact you condemn homosexuality. Lets have a look at the definition of homophobic:

homophobic



WriteDictionaryPronObjectTag("152", "21", "http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/audio/pron/f00/F0082700.mp3", "homophobic");


ho·mo·pho·bic [ hmə fṓbik ]

adjective
Definition: having irrational hatred of homosexuality: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture


So now we have established you are in fact homophobic by the fact you yourself have admitted you disapprove or condemn homosexuality, why are you homophobic?

Do you condemn homosexuals because of something you read in the bible? Then why is it you have never felt the need to condemn people who eat shellfish, or people who wear clothes of mixed fabrics. Far more people do this, yet you have never felt the need to start a thread condemning these people.

Or is there another reason? You've made one false denial in your post, could there be second? It's certainly a possibility and would explain a lot.

 

[Washington]

Time to get the knives out...

First of all, you may not consider yourself homophobic, but I'd guess most other people would by the very fact you condemn homosexuality. Lets have a look at the definition of homophobic:

homophobic

WriteDictionaryPronObjectTag("152", "21", "http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/audio/pron/f00/F0082700.mp3", "homophobic");

ho·mo·pho·bic [ hmə fṓbik ]

adjective
Definition: having irrational hatred of homosexuality: showing an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture

Quite correct. "Homophobic" has come to denote more than its literal rendering, "Fear of homosexuals."

 

[BigBadWlf]

So what?

I can take two approaches to this:

This is the approach that leftists use at studies demonstrating sexual promiscuity and lack of monogamy amongst homosexuals: "The report is flawed."

However, this is my approach:

Whatever. I am not sexually aroused by men and I condemn homosexuality. I do not consider myself a homophobic, though, as I do not fear them. There is nothing to fear of differences.

And as you well know homophobia has nothing to do with fear of homosexuals

 

[m9lc]

Actually.... so what? They got aroused. Doesn't mean anything. It happens to me when I'm not even thinking about anything sometimes. Embarrassing, sure. But expose someone to something like that, what do you think the result is gonna be? Doesn't nervousness play into this too? Like, "Oh I don't want to see this" kinda thing. Flight or fight response, baby. Besides.... if that's your choice, fine. But leave me out of it. I don't need to see something as.... well, unnatural as that.

And Maynard, maybe we're just afraid taht we'll look stupid? Homosexuality is kinda a delicate subject, ya know. And an embarrassing one for a guy.

He does present a valid point... one more uncomfortable with homosexuality might just get nervous and uncomfortable with such footage. This would generate some sympathetic nervous system action which could easily spill over into sexual arousal.

 

[Domenico]

He does present a valid point... one more uncomfortable with homosexuality might just get nervous and uncomfortable with such footage. This would generate some sympathetic nervous system action which could easily spill over into sexual arousal.

Not really. Separate parts of the brain would light up.

 

[NavyGuy7]

But that wouldn't make it what I believe. What I believe is stronger than the body's automatic responses. I have a choice to reject something I don't agree with, despite bodily responses.
Just because my body responds like that doesn't make me gay. Sorry, but can't do it. Watching the thing and committing the thing are two different circumstances, true?

 

[cantata]

Homosexuality is attraction, not action.

Men who rape other men in prison, for example, are rarely homosexual.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Homophobia just means you're afraid of sameness. Kind of a dumb research article.

 

[Futuwwa]

Watch out, it's teh definition nazi!

 

[Futuwwa]

It seems telling the homophobes that they are actually gay is the greatest weapon in shutting them up.

Well, you have to hand it to the liberals for the way they use this piece of propaganda. It convinces the masses that there is something pathological about disapproving of homosexuality, and it makes dissidents fearful of speaking up in fear of implicitly signalling their homosexuality.

 

[stan1980]

Well, you have to hand it to the liberals for the way they use this piece of propaganda. It convinces the masses that there is something pathological about disapproving of homosexuality, and it makes dissidents fearful of speaking up in fear of implicitly signalling their homosexuality.

I don't see any good reason for speaking up against homosexuality so who cares if people get scared of doing so?

 

[Futuwwa]

Do you think freedom of speech is a good thing? If the intellectual climate is one where the consequences of expressing particular opinions are draconian, is not freedom of speech effectively compromised?

 

[stan1980]

Do you think freedom of speech is a good thing?

Honestly? not always! Although I wouldn't try to prevent freedom of speech.

If the intellectual climate is one where the consequences of expressing particular opinions are draconian, is not freedom of speech effectively compromised?

The only consequence here is people thinking you are gay. Hardly draconian. As a straight man, I honestly could not care less if someone thought I was gay. I'd probably just think they must think I have good dress sense or something.