There’s a famous study, which many liberals are fond of, which involves putting a special cuff around the penises of homophobic young men. This cuff measures even tiny changes in the penile circumference. The homophobes are then shown homoerotic films; the cuff shows that their penises get bigger as they watch hot gay men doing what hot gay men do in such films. In contrast, a control group of non-homophobic men with cuffs around their dicks didn’t show any reaction to the hot gay men. The authors conclude that “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”
I most often see this study brought up by liberals and lefties when they’re arguing with a right-winger about some queer rights issue; the point is that homophobes are homophobic because they’re repressing secret gay desires. I don’t like the way it’s brought up in argument, because it’s usually used as a sort of neener-neener “you only say that because you’re a closet case” ad hom attack.
But I’m also bothered by the study’s methodology and interpretation. First of all, measuring sexuality by strapping a cuff around Mr. Happy – while ignoring what the subjects say about their subjective state of arousal – is a reductive and simplistic way of defining male sexuality.
Second of all, sexual excitement isn’t the only thing that can alter a penis’ circumference. The study authors themselves, towards the end of their study, acknowledge that their data could be explained by homophobes feeling anxious and threatened, rather than by secret gay desires:
Another explanation of these data is found in Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck’s (1983) theory of the role of anxiety and attention in sexual responding. It is possible that viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as anxiety in homophobic men but not in nonhomophobic men. Because anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict increases in erection in homophobic men. Furthermore, it would indicate that a response to homosexual stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se.
To me, that seems more likely than the theory that homophobes are mostly closet cases – even though the closet case theory is, I admit, more fun.
Pingback: Non Tibi Spiro
As entertaining it is to think of homophobes as repressed gay men, I wouldn’t find that survey very convincing of that theory. Honestly, it sounds like the sort of wacky study conservatives cite as if its conclusive proof, and I’d be disappointed in anyone on my side of the political divide following suit. Sure, it’ll rile up the homophobes something ferce, but we get under their skin the old fashioned way without trying to apply pseudo-science to “prove” the point.
I’d also be curious as to how the study authors measured or established the subjects’ “homophobia”.
It’s not just an ad hominem argument, I think. One of the appealing things about the “homophobes are closet cases” idea was that it very patly explained the depth of their fear. Think of the argument that a visible, non-stigmatized gay community will “recruit” innocent straights into temptation. A non-homophobic straight person (aside: is there a good word for that?) should know darn well that they’re not susceptible to “recruitment”. A homophobic but *innately gay* person has no such assurance. When they *project* that lack of assurance onto the rest of society, their children, etc., they view every public display of gayness as part of that recruitment, and a crack in the only bulwark defending their own straight lifestyle.
But if it’s just a research blip, well, never mind. Wasn’t this the same type of arousal measurement that led to the “Straight, Gay, or Lying” study reported in the NYT?
It’s quite possible that some homophobes are repressing bisexuality or homosexuality, and registering anger and fear because they envy out LGBT people the freedom they’ve denied themselves.
It’s quite possible that some homophobes are as heterosexual as all get-out, and their hatred for LGBT comes from a religious upbringing, or other culturally-acquired squick-factor.
It’s more than possible, it’s highly probable, that there are as many motivations for someone being a homophobe as there are for any other kind of bigotry, from the presumption that it’s socially acceptable to express homophobic views rather than tolerance or acceptance or respect for LGBT people, to the sincere belief that God wants it that way, and multiple varieties of crackpottery and prejudice in between.
This kind of physical “test” proves nothing, and I’m always disappointed when I see someone theoretically on my side of the fence citing it as if it did.
“Ally” usually works pretty well. Or “straight ally” if it might be unclear in the context otherwise. If you really want to be nitpicky about it, an ally is a nonhomophobic straight person who is also committed to speaking out against homophobia.
It’s more accurate to say that some people react to homosexual attraction with homophobia than the reverse.
It’s more than possible, it’s highly probable, that there are as many motivations for someone being a homophobe as there are for any other kind of bigotry
That line made you my hero of the day, Jesurgislac.
A couple of thoughts about this study:
1. It’s not pseudo-science. It’s a small study that looked at only a few variables and had some questionable assumptions, but it did use basic scientific methodology reasonably. That doesn’t prove that it’s correct in either results or conclusions, of course.
2. The two explanations for the increase in penile diameter seen in homophobic men are not mutually exclusive. Some homophobic men may have an attraction/repulsion reaction to gay porn. The very fact that they are enraged by the behavior may make it sexy for them: an attraction to the forbidden, perhaps, or some level of sadism. Of course, as jes pointed out, different people may have different reasons for being homophobic, so both explanations and all gradations in between may be true in some cases. One might also wonder about self-selection: the men in this experiment volunteered knowing that they were going to see, among other things, gay porn. Could the study have therefore accidently have selected for those who were more likely to enjoy that forbidden thrill? On the other hand, it is clear from some of the propoganda from homophobic groups that a repressed homosexuality runs through a good deal of homophobic fears. Consider, for example, Cameron’s statements that homosexuality can’t be allowed because it is too pleasureable and would cause people to abandon hetereosexual sex if it were accepted. That’s not the conclusion of a straight person.
3. If men get erections when they get angry or anxious, that explains a lot about the average man’s approach to relationships. (Sorry, cheap shot, I know…but still true.)
4. Off topic: Where’s the Monday baby blogging?
Consider, for example, Cameron’s statements that homosexuality can’t be allowed because it is too pleasureable and would cause people to abandon hetereosexual sex if it were accepted. That’s not the conclusion of a straight person.
Actually, it could well be the conclusion of a straight person.
A straight person who has no positive experiences of heterosexual sex, and who has been told (who believes) that the only reason men have sex with men (or women with women) is because they are the kind of person who hedonistically pursue pleasure at the cost of everything else. A straight person might well have the sincere belief that lesbians and gays have better sex that straight people, since they’re under the impression that straight sex is really awful.
(Trying to explain to these people that because sex is a learned activity for humans (and we no longer live so that we routinely learn how by seeing people do it) LGB people are as capable of having really awful sex just like straight people sometimes do, is a futile activity. It leads to wide-eyed confusion and sometimes to weird requests to know “what do you actually do?”)
It is likewise a myth among some clueless hets who blame all their relationship problems on the “fact” that the “opposite sex” is just too different to comprehend, that woman-woman couples and man-man couples will just naturally get on far better than man-woman couples: indeed, they sometimes claim this is why man-woman couples are so much better because they have to work at it.
jes: You make a good point, one I’m a bit embarrassed for not recognizing earlier. I’m afraid I simply never thought of it that way. I, like, I suspect, most people, didn’t have the world’s greatest first sexual experience. My early experiences with dating and sexuality did make me wonder at one point if I might be a lesbian (that is, I thought maybe I wasn’t having a good time dating because I was dating people of the wrong gender), but the idea that it might be innately easier to be a lesbian (or gay man) just never occured to me. Perhaps I was badly brought up.
Dianne: Great post!
I got busy this Monday and didn’t do Monday Baby Blogging. But it’ll be back next week, I promise.
A non-homophobic straight person (aside: is there a good word for that?)
Sure. “Someone” or “most people” would be good terms.
It’s not pseudo-science. It’s a small study that looked at only a few variables and had some questionable assumptions, but it did use basic scientific methodology reasonably. That doesn’t prove that it’s correct in either results or conclusions, of course.
Dianne, I don’t think you’ll find pseudo-science in the dictionary. But if something has questionable assumptions, doesn’t adequately control variables, and is incorrect in either results or concolusions, it’s pseudo-science to me, regardless of how scientific their methodology may look. Just like ID/creationism.
If men get erections when they get angry or anxious, that explains a lot about the average man’s approach to relationships. (Sorry, cheap shot, I know…but still true.)
Hey, don’t blame us. We were given enough blood to run either our brains or our cocks, but not both simultaneously. It’s not our fault.
Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic 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).
What? There’s an index of homophobia? I need to see this! Anybody know of a link? I want to know what the “official” definition of homophobia is.
Hmmm…four posts in a row on one of them “gay” threads…there’s your Index, Ron – big 4.0. Mighty suspicious.
This argument has its place. In the closet on the top shelf. Nicely done.
I think that it is very likely that in analyzing homosexuality, one should analyze male homosexuality and lesbianism separately. I don’t think that they are necessarily mirror-images of each other.
FIrst rule of psychology:
Correlation is not causation
Glaivester Writes: I think that it is very likely that in analyzing homosexuality, one should analyze male homosexuality and lesbianism separately. I don’t think that they are necessarily mirror-images of each other.
There are strong cultural differences between how women are taught and encouraged to think about ourselves, our sexual desires, our bodies, and how men are taught and encouraged to think about themselves, their sexual desires, their bodies. These differences are stronger in the past than the present. I suspect that those differences account for the cultural difference between queer men and women: and I certainly see no reason to suppose otherwise.
I willl agree that the cited study doesn’t seem well designed and almost certainly failed to adequitely test the hypothesis.
Still, I had never heard of the study but had still wondered on more than one occasion whether many of the homophobic statements I run across didn’t point to repressed homosexuality. Primarily because of the insistance that sexual orientation is a life style choice and the concern, expressed both explicitly and implicitly, that many more young people would choose homosexual orientation if the social stigma were removed.
I think the social penalties of homosexual orientation are so severe that if it was actually a matter of choice essentially no one would choose to endure them. I have doubts about the heterosexuality of anyone who finds homosexuality attractive enough to entertain the notion that a substantial portion of the population would willing endure the consequences in order to participate.
I think the social penalties of homosexual orientation are so severe that if it was actually a matter of choice essentially no one would choose to endure them.
Our society is homophobic, but not *that* homophobic. Just look at the number of bisexual people — who do have a choice about whether to have a same-sex or opposite-sex relationship — who choose same-sex relationships.
It’s part of a Scoutmaster’s duty to have a conference with each Scout just prior to each time he advances in rank. Partly to assure that the Scout has in fact done what he was supposed to have done to advance, and partly to get to know him better, judge his personal growth, make sure we’re doing for him what we’re supposed to be doing, find out what’s going on in his life outside of Scouting, etc.
I was interviewing one young man when, with no prodding from me, he started off on how bad homosexuality was. Believe me, I didn’t bring it up; that’s the last thing I want to talk to the kids about, and it’s really not something that’s on the agenda for a Scoutmaster’s conference or Scouting in general. But what was most interesting was that this kid was, in my private opinion, the most likely of all the kids to be gay. He had a lot of problems in getting along with the other kids, and confrontations had turned violent. This was not something unique in Scouting; there was a lot of this going on in school.
I told him that this was a subject that his parents and his minister were the proper people to talk to about (he wasn’t Catholic, and in any case this was prior to the scandals), and moved on. But I wonder what was going on there. At first I suspected repression. But these days I’m also thinking that he might well be straight (he’s not in my Troop, but he’s in another one and I spoke to him a while back for about 20 minutes) but subject to taunts and accusations of being gay. Perhaps he was being so vocal about this as a defense mechanism. His personal attributes match some characteristics of the “gay” stereotype; slim build, non-athletic, somewhat more intellectual than the other kids. He’s also ADHD, which is where a lot of the conflicts come from.
My point is that I wonder if a lot of people who are suspected of repression are in fact straight but are reacting to other people’s perceptions of them. It’s got to be tough for a young straight man who for some reason sets off people’s “gaydar”.
But what was most interesting was that this kid was, in my private opinion, the most likely of all the kids to be gay. He had a lot of problems in getting along with the other kids, and confrontations had turned violent.
O.K. This was an unfortunate juxtaposition. I don’t mean to imply that I though the kid might be gay because he was having confrontations. The two are not connected. I put that in to introduce the concept that this was a troubled kid, leading to the discussion of why he was troubled and what consequences that had. But I should have edited this to separate the two.
I was reading a “history of sex” book, and it got into the topic of lesbianism. If the material in this book is to be believed (I don’t have it in front of me) it seems that the social and legal penalties for male vs. female homosexuality are different in a great many cultures, including eastern/Asian ones. A much greater tolerance of female lesbianism/bi-sexuality vs. male non-heterosexuality seems to be very common. Cultural attitudes towards this may have their origin in basic human psychology.
Yeah, how about that Robert ;-} I’ve been a leader in the Scouts for over 13 years now, and I’ve had to deal with the topic a lot, both online and in person. I’ve done a lot of thinking about it. Sex is a very powerfully emotional issue, and I don’t want some kid screwed up because of negligence on my part.
Cultural attitudes towards this may have their origin in basic human psychology.
…or in cultural attitudes towards men and women. Better go with the known obvious than invent a reason, and “basic human psychology” is meaningless (unless you’re going back to the primates, but you can’t prove anything about cultural attitudes to homosexuality from how other chimps behave).
A much greater tolerance of female lesbianism/bi-sexuality vs. male non-heterosexuality seems to be very common. Cultural attitudes towards this may have their origin in basic human psychology.
Warrior memes, the type that favor a large population, tend to focus on warriors.
This is some slightly off-topic friendly speculation, in response to Jesurgislac’s comment, above:
There are strong cultural differences between how women are taught and encouraged to think about ourselves, our sexual desires, our bodies, and how men are taught and encouraged to think about themselves, their sexual desires, their bodies. These differences are stronger in the past than the present. I suspect that those differences account for the cultural difference between queer men and women: and I certainly see no reason to suppose otherwise.
I think this may not be fully true (although I agree that it is at least partly true). The current understanding of the orgins of homosexuality is pretty limited, as far as I can tell, but the evidence (from twin studies, for example) definitely suggests at least some influence from genetics and/or other biological factors, and that does have an influence on temperament and behaviour. And I think it’s entirely possible that there could be different biological factors that can lead to homosexuality, certainly between males and females; for example, there’s a condition called Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia that affects females prenatally – males can have the condition but generally show no effects – and is associated with an increased likelihood of identifying oneself as homosexual or bisexual. (Or so says David Schaffer in Social & Personality Development, p. 247) With these multiple paths, it’s possible that there might be some general innate differences in temperament/personality between gays and lesbians in general. The same applies to straight populations, I suspect.
Again, this isn’t to say that the environment doesn’t play a huge role in socialization as well, but the influence goes both ways, and if there are some population level differences that apply to many gays and lesbians, I think it probably could lead to some cultural differences. So, even if social change proceeds as it currently is, and parents/families/society are all less inclined to treat girls and boys differently, there may be some biological sex differences that will evoke unintentional treatment differences anyway, and small cultural differences between gays and lesbians, as well as straight men and women, might persist.
Getting back to the original post, there are first-person confessions of persons, men especially, who practiced gay-baiting and gay bashing who later came out as gay. Because our society does such a good job of demonizing same-sex sexuality, and until relatively recently it was all but impossible to find anything public that was positive about being homosexual, many many people internalized the cultural message of hate, myself included. Some deal with it by healthy rejection of those messages, which I eventually came to, others crumble and end up commiting suicide – and the rate of suicide among same-sex oriented persons is still higher than in other demographically similar persons – or they externalize that hate and attack others, verbally or physically, for their perceived gayness, often as a way to convince their peers and themselves that they “are not like that.” In my own case, I participated in or was passive against anti-gay humor and anti-gay statements and epithets, and often contemplated and even planned for my own suicide. Thankfully, I’m mostly past that, but there are still times when I avoid or hide my sexual orientation rather than allow it to be a simple statement of fact.
Internalized self-hate doesn’t explain homophobia, but then neither did the study, because the homophobia (which isn’t the most accurate term for the behaviors) already exists, and what we’re witnessing is rather an expression of that homophobia.
I am not suggesting that all homophobes are repressed, self-hating homosexuals, but certainly some are.
As to the comments about the diverse treatment of same-sex behaviors in men versus women, I strongly recommend you look at the relationship between misogyny and homophobia. In male-oriented, male-dominated cultures, when men behave outside the expectations for their gender, they threaten the status quo. Most of the hatred and disgust expressed against gay men is focused on men perceived to be behaving, in some manner, like women, by being the receptive (penetrated) partner, or by exhibiting behaviors associated with the female gender. Again, there is testimony from convicted gay bashers that part of the internal justification for their attacks were that the men were perceived to be insufficiently masculine (or the women were perceived to be too masculine). Women witnessed in same-sex behaviors draw less fire because male-dominated cultures already devalue women, so their “deviancy” is of less importance; this combined with an apparent capacity to be more truly bisexual, leaving men with the idea that they can still mate with homosexual women (after all, there’s still rape), means that lesbians don’t threaten the dominant heterosexual male worldview.
From the site http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_corr.html I offer the following:
“In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes are more likely to be:
* men
* older
* less well-educated
* residing in geographic areas where negative attitudes represent the norm (for example, rural areas or the Midwestern or Southern United States).
In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes are:
* more likely to attend religious services frequently
* more likely to endorse orthodox religious beliefs, such as the literal truth of the Bible
* more likely to be a Republican than a Democrat or Independent
* more likely to describe themselves as politically conservative, rather than liberal or moderate.
In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes:
* display higher levels of psychological authoritarianism
* are less sexually permissive
* are more supportive of traditional gender roles.
In contrast to heterosexuals with favorable attitudes toward gay people, those with negative attitudes:
* are more likely to believe that a homosexual orientation is freely chosen
* are less likely to have had close personal friends or family members who are openly lesbian or gay.”
Finally, I offer this. We live in a world of high stress, from threats to (and from) the environment to the attrocities of terrorism. In times of high cultural stress, there are those who seek to relieve their stress by scapegoating others as the cause of that which endangers them, and the scapegoats are always the nonconformists, the minority populations, those outside the perceived mainstream. Men who participate in same-sex sexual behaviors have, for at least the last 2000+ years, been a frequently chosen and convenient scapegoat, and they have been exiled, beaten, stoned, hung, burned, tortured, drowned and dehumanized in ways limited only by the demonic imaginations of their persecutors. Today is no different, where gays have been blamed for the bombing of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the bombings in the London subway, the hurricanes that struck the Gulf Coast, earthquakes, etc. Same-sex marriage will destroy the family and with it western civilization as we know it (as if this would be a bad thing?). Like primitive peoples trying to determine the cause of thunder and ascribing it to the actions of gods, those living in fear of their world, unable to accept that natural phenomena have no moral conscience and affect the “good” as well as the “bad,” that men and women can express their will to harm others in ways that seem to make no sense, that find themselves unnerved by the changes wrought by shifting economic and social structures, reach back and pull up the stale canards of fear-mongering and bigotry as an expression of and defense against their fears – drive out the “wicked” and the rest of us will be saved. It’s always easier to attack an enemy than to do the hard internal work of fixing those problems we can address – and if you see parallels here to the fiasco in Iraq, that’s not unintentional.
RonF earlier asked for a link to the test that scales one’s homophobia. Here’s a link:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/etc/quiz.html
skeptic888: And I think it’s entirely possible that there could be different biological factors that can lead to homosexuality
I think it’s entirely possible that there are no biological factors that lead to homosexualty, actually. It’s an unpopular viewpoint these days, but so it goes.
Scientific investigation of “causes” of homosexuality is inevitably going to be flawed, and here is why:
Until we have a completely non-homophobic society, any control group of heterosexuals (necessary, if you’re going to try and figure out what biological factors exist for gay/bi people that don’t exist for straigths) is inevitably going to include a proportion of gay/bi people who are firmly closeted and have no intention of coming out (who may never have admitted, not even to themselves, what those sexual feelings are). You can’t get a valid control group until you have a non-homophobic society in which your sexual orientation is about as important as your preference for coffee or for tea.
And once we have that non-homophobic society, finding out what “causes” homosexuality or heterosexuality will get the same kind of funding and be regarded with the same kind of tolerant uninterest as scientific research into why some people prefer coffee, and others, tea.
Hm. Skeptic888, I took that quiz. Scored 60. So according to the authors of this quiz, I am officially homophobic. One question I didn’t know how to answer:
“I fear homosexual persons will make sexual advances towards me.”
Homosexual persons have made sexual advances towards me a few times; I was 16 the first time it happened. I certainly anticipate that homosexual persons will make sexual advances towards me. I don’t fear it.
However, this doesn’t quite tell me what I was looking for. This link does not give the actual Index of Homophobia. It gives a quiz with questions whose answers I presume are evaluated and scored based on that Index. Or do I misunderstand what’s going on? Is there an actual copy of the Index online somewhere that you happen to know of?
I’m a non-homophobic 46.
You MONSTER.
Jesurgislac, I think that you are certainly largely right that homosexuality is, at this point, at best very, very difficult to study objectively, and your reasons have merit, though I wouldn’t put closeted folks in the control group as quite so high a factor.
But your post seems to imply that the difficulty in examining the causes is a reason to state that they don’t exist. Surely you don’t think that or expect people to support it as a reason for the opinion.
Pingback: Ex-Gay Watch
Sorry, RonF, that’s the best link I could come up with.
I’m curious why you had problems answering that one question. Either you fear something, or you don’t. You say you don’t fear homosexual persons making advances toward you, so you answered the question.
Although not quite related, I’d be interested in reading some thoughts on the so-called gay panic defense. It seems to me that if every woman reacted violently to every unwanted pass made at her there’d be a lot of wounded and dead men lying about. OK, maybe you’ll say that’s different because it’s not same-sex, but I suspect RonF and others were able to deflect the attention when someone made a pass at them, so where’s the justification in reacting with violence? So how did you handle those passes, RonF?
And to respond to Jesurgilac, twin studies appear to indicate a biological component in homosexuality, as do studies within families. In my own family, on my father’s side, there are myself and two male cousins who are gay (and possibly another one who is closeted); all are children of my father’s siblings, one to each family in families that had multiple children, the others who are heterosexual. None of us had contact with the others growing up, and we each grew up in different environments (in different countries, even). I am lousy on statistics but I believe this exceeds coincidence.
That said, I will also state that I believe “homosexual identity” as we understand it is a cultural construct as well – that in other cultures at other times I might be a man who prefers sex with men but would not adopt an exclusively homosexual identity, perhaps because such a thing did not exist. Pederasts in ancient Greek culture would not be considered gay by today’s definitions, because the behavior was predicated on differing social positions, where a youth, not having gained the status of full citizen, did not have to be ashamed to accept a passive, receptive position, whereas the Greeks (and Romans) disapproved of sex between two adult males of equal social status. I guess I’m trying to make a distinction between same-sex behaviors which can be those between consenting adults, or may be opportunistic like prison sex or British public school sex, or a cultural feature, like the youth in some tribes in the South Pacific (if I have my geography correct) performing oral sex on their elders as part of the transition between childhood and adult status in the tribe, and sexual identity as gay/queer/homosexual, which seems to be a relatively recent construct. At the same time, there is evidence that for as long as mankind has been around, people of the same sex have fallen in love and lived together, and presumably had sex together. If this is a constant, whether or not the social climate of that time and place supported or discriminated against same-sex relationships, wouldn’t this argue that it is in fact a normal variant of human sexuality, that a certain percentage of individuals will always be more strongly or exclusively drawn sexually and/or emotionally to their own sex? It happens in other species, where there is no culture, as far as we can determine, to influence the “choice,” so why not in humans?
IMHO, it should not matter if homosexuality is genetic, hormonal, an event that occurs in utero, is environmental, or strictly a personal choice – I don’t see why gay sexual identity and the responsible expression thereof (by responsible I mean that it follows the same rules as responsible heterosexual expression in not being exploitive, in not being pedophilic in nature, etc.) should be cause in our civil society (leaving religious views out of the argument) to deny this group the same rights and privileges enjoyed by others.
So for throwing so many points together in one post.
Peter: But your post seems to imply that the difficulty in examining the causes is a reason to state that they don’t exist.
1. I think, for the reasons I outlined, that it will be difficult-to-impossible to discover any biological causes of homosexuality in a homophobic world where any control group of supposed-heteros will undoubtedly include closety LGB people.
2. I think that when we live in a non-homophobic world, no one will care what the “causes” of homosexuality are, any more than anyone now cares or seeks to investigate what the “causes” of heterosexuality are.
3. I suspect that people who want to discover the “cause” or “causes” of homosexuality are people who really don’t believe that heterosexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality – the range of human sexual orientation – are all natural to human beings. They want to think that something happened to make a “normal” human, who would have been “naturally” attracted to the opposite gender, into someone who is attracted to the same gender.
I think that (1) is clearly true if you think about it scientifically. I think that (2) is probably going to be true, but I admit that there’s no way to prove it yet. And (3) is just my own opinion – certainly I can’t think of any good reason to care how it happens that some people turn out straight, others gay/lesbian, and still others bisexual.
Another way of measuring homophobia that I like a bit more than the Homophobia Index (I scored 6-10, by the way, depending on how I answered the less clear questions) is the implicit associations test of subconscious bias. On the IAT, I have a moderate preference for straights.
The HI question I had the hardest time with was “Gay people deserve what they get.” What is it that gay people get? Beaten up and discriminated against? Progressively greater acceptance in society? Marriage rights?
Jes, the twin study method of studying homosexuality can’t determine causes, because it’s essentially a correlational study, but it does imply a biological component because the concordance rate for identical twins, who have the same genetic makeup, is significantly higher than that of fraternal twins, who share only half their genes. Since it’s based only on reported incidence of homosexuality, the actual absolute numbers may differ, but I can’t see any reason why more identical twins than fraternal twins would report being gay. It’s not perfect, but it’s good evidence for a biological influence.
With regards to the idea that people want to discover the causes of homosexuality to somehow prove that it’s deviant, I think you’re probably right, and I do find that a really sad aspect of our society. However, I don’t think that it applies to everyone with an interest in causes, or that when we get to the point of a non-homophobic society, no one will be interested in its causes. We can seek out causes because we want to “cure” something perceived as abnormal, or because we want to understand why without seeking to change something without reason. Perhaps in a non-homophobic society, the latter sort of research will be more common.
I got a 4 on the Homophobia index, and the IAT says that I have a “moderate automatic preference for Gay People compared to Straight People.” So apparently I really am a caricature of a pro-gay liberal.
The IAT tests are so weird; they always make me think of brainwashing techniques.
but it does imply a biological component because the concordance rate for identical twins, who have the same genetic makeup, is significantly higher than that of fraternal twins, who share only half their genes. Since it’s based only on reported incidence of homosexuality, the actual absolute numbers may differ, but I can’t see any reason why more identical twins than fraternal twins would report being gay.
Identical twins are always the same gender, and have a special closeness that no other pair of siblings ever match. In order to be certain that environmental factor had no effect on identical twins being more likely to both be gay than fraternal twins, you would need to have a control group of significant numbers of identical twins, separated at birth… and to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no such control group.
However, I don’t think that it applies to everyone with an interest in causes, or that when we get to the point of a non-homophobic society, no one will be interested in its causes.
Then why do you suppose there aren’t scientific studies trying to establish why some people turn out heterosexual?
or because we want to understand why
But in a non-homophobic society, why would anyone care why?
So apparently I really am a caricature of a pro-gay liberal.
Dude. Was there ever any question?
If you want to make some money, go to CafePress and make a shirt that says “Apparently I really am…” with a funny doodle of yourself, and sell them to your minions.
But in a non-homophobic society, why would anyone care why?
Because we’re interested in human sexuality, or in knowledge for its own sake. I’d be interested to find out what kingdom or island was called Atlantis by the Egyptian priests, but that’s not because I hate Egyptian culture and want to see it denigrated by being demoted to successor-state status.
Not everything is political.
Jes: why would anyone care why?
Well, I’d care because I’m a psychology student, and every avenue of research implies job possibilities!
On a more serious note, I do think there’s a legitimate interest in why people are the way they are, in all their variations, just for the sake of knowing why.
Then why do you suppose there aren’t scientific studies trying to establish why some people turn out heterosexual?
At the risk of trying to read your mind, I suspect that your opinion is that those studies don’t exist because the majority of (at least heterosexual) people presume that heterosexuality is the “default” human sexual orientation. If that is your opinion, I actually agree. But I think that research into the causes of homosexuality, which so far looks like it’s showing multiple factors that include a biological component, might shed some deeper insight on the causes of heterosexuality as well – essentially, give us the hint that there may well be multiple pathways there as well, so it’s worth learning about.
Identical twins are always the same gender, and have a special closeness that no other pair of siblings ever match. In order to be certain that environmental factor had no effect on identical twins being more likely to both be gay than fraternal twins, you would need to have a control group of significant numbers of identical twins, separated at birth… and to the best of my knowledge and belief, there is no such control group.
A very quick and dirty literature search didn’t turn up any studies that used exactly this sort of control group – the only one I found involving separated twins had four pairs of female identical twins, who didn’t display any concordance at all for sexual orientation. However, very small sample, and not a controlled study. In addition, the twin studies I took a look at did take into account the possibility of unequal environments, but didn’t find strong evidence for it. (If you’ve got access to a university library, here’s one cite: Kendler et al., Sexual Orientation in a U.S. Sample of Twin and Nontwin Sibling Pairs, American Journal of Psychiatry 157(11), 2000) Essentially, this study used measures of environmental similarity obtained in childhood to see if that predicted concordance for homsexuality in adulthood, after controlling for whether or not the twins were identical or fraternal. Obviously, this isn’t going to lead to perfect certainty – and that study is far from perfect – but I think it also demonstrates that researchers are looking for and considering alternate explanations for the data, and so far at least, there does appear to be a biological component.
I also hope it’s clear that I’m not arguing that biology is destiny, or that there should be research into causes of homosexuality in order to find a “cure” – I think that both those positions are wrong. I simply think that anything that gives us more insight into human development and relationships is worth learning about, and that to the best of our current knowledge, there’s a reasonable case that homosexuality is at least partially biological in origin, and to me, at least, that’s interesting for its own sake.
(Sorry for hijacking this thread!)
mangala: However, very small sample, and not a controlled study.
The number of identical twins who were separated at birth has never been large (identical twins aren’t a common phenomenon in the first place) and given that current thinking in adoption is to keep siblings together, that number is only going to get smaller. It would take a concerted (and highly unethical) effort to deliberately separate identical twins at birth for purposes of study… and for many reasons, I really hope no government is ever going to be so lost to human feeling to do that. There are some things more important than advancement of knowledge.
But I think that research into the causes of homosexuality, which so far looks like it’s showing multiple factors that include a biological component, might shed some deeper insight on the causes of heterosexuality as well – essentially, give us the hint that there may well be multiple pathways there as well, so it’s worth learning about.
To be fair, all I know about these studies is what I read in the non-scientific press, which gives a fair chance of the study being misreported. The impression I get, however, is that the studies tend to ignore bisexuality, ignore the likelihood of closety LGB people in their “het” control group, ignore women, and ignore the social pressure to have a “sexual identity” – which may or may not conform well to a person’s sexual orientation.
Jes, I’m going mainly by what I read in my psych texts, plus the references in them and a look at studies that cite those references, and the studies I read over tended to focus on either males or females – I think because it’s very likely that sexuality in males and females may be influenced by different things – and rely on correlation. They weren’t true experimental studies, and therefore tended not to have a hetero control group, unlike the study discussed in this post or “gay, straight, or lying study.” That creates its own problems, of course.
They also used varying definitions of “homosexuality” and sometimes included bisexuality, so while they’re not ignoring it, the possibility that sexuality is more complicated than “gay” and “straight” isn’t being fully explored in these studies. The possibility that the respondents aren’t giving entirely truthful answers is generally discussed, although sometimes it’s believed not to matter, as I mentioned.
But those things always come up in the discussion sections, with many caveats and acceptance of possible alternate explanations, and that’s what the non-scientific press always seems to leave out when reporting scientific studies. It’s certainly what appears to have happened with the study that’s the topic of this post, anyway.
(On the topic of identical-twins-separated-at-birth – I too hope there will never be a government willing to conduct that sort of study by deliberately separating kids, and even more that there will never be psychologist who tries to propose it or an ethics board that approves it. Fortunately, the importance of ethical research is something they start teaching early on, these days.)
Mangala, it sounds like you’re better informed about these studies than I am, and therefore your opinion of them is more likely to be correct: I would always tend to privilege an informed opinion over an uninformed opinion, even when it means saying, as I think I have to say: You’re probably right, and I’m probably wrong.
What has happened to the aphorism “you take care of your knitting, and I’ll take care of mine.” The meaning, in this instance, is that if these people don’t want to engage in homosex, they shouldn’t. But they shouldn’t get involved with those of us who do. Those who try to do so are nothing but nattering nannies.
Just 7 years late but since the news blogs routinely reject comments that call out repressed phobes I want to find a place to put my thoughts.
When a man is strongly homophobic you have to wonder why. It seems as though they are asserting their heterosexual credentials by showing how anti-gay they are.
Yet most straight men I know (dare I say it, “liberals”) aren’t really interested in gays – they are interested in women. Gays are simply not important in their lives.
I suspect homophobia most times is related to repressed bisexual feelings. The anxiety defence is laughable, except maybe in a tiny minority of cases. Every woman knows that anxious men usually struggle with erections. I’ve never known a man to gain an erection when anxious, quite the opposite. Not once. Every single time.
I don’t believe that anti-Semites secretly want to be Jews (though it would be an interesting world if they did), so it makes sense that people can be driven by hatred for reasons unrelated to being in the closet.
As stated above, *some* homophobes actually are closeted homosexuals.