Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

[sweetnpetite]

They're talking about the concern of homophobic people that they have been "contaminated". The research found close associations between homophobia and concern about contamination... make sense? They also found associations between homophobia and conservative views about sexuality.

That's not the article being biased, thats the homophobic people being biased in the study--thus producing associations with other things about either homosexuals (a fear of "becoming gay") or sex ("conservative practices").

Again, the article isn't biased... its giving the facts of the study. Namely, that these associations came up. If you'd care to read the actual study (I have a link for it and read it tonite), you'll find I'm accurate on this.

Did you just say 'the articles not biased, the study is- or the people doing the study are'?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
Did you just say 'the articles not biased, the study is- or the people doing the study are'?

I'm saying the article isn't biased (because it reported the facts of the matter), the study isn't biased (it appears to be researching the notion of "homophobia" fairly objectively, with regards to where it might come from and whether its a clinical situation or a social one), and the people that are the SUBJECT of the study are biased (as "homophobia" appears to be similar, according to the study, to racism or sexisms... which traditionally represent a bias).

 

[Belegon]

They're talking about the concern of homophobic people that they have been "contaminated".

I would say a fear that they have been "contaminated" is evidence of a lack of confidence in their sexuality. How else could they have felt themselves to have been contaminated unless they felt they were susceptible to such contamination?

thats the homophobic people being biased in the study--thus producing associations with other things about either homosexuals (a fear of "becoming gay") or sex ("conservative practices").

Our original discussion was about exactly such fears. That it is less socially acceptable for a man to "play" with homsexuality in his words/writing/posts than it is for a woman to do so. The "fear of becoming gay" is a large part of this social issue.

If you'd care to read the actual study (I have a link for it and read it tonite), you'll find I'm accurate on this.

This is what should be done in the first place if you do not wish the writings of the other article writers to influence the view your audience will have of the research being cited. Almost always better to go directly to the original. Language may be a barrier, especially for our non-native english speakers. Still, at least it comes unburdened with a right-wing christian agenda. We are not all Christians here.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm saying the article isn't biased (because it reported the facts of the matter), the study isn't biased (it appears to be researching the notion of "homophobia" fairly objectively, with regards to where it might come from and whether its a clinical situation or a social one), and the people that are the SUBJECT of the study are biased (as "homophobia" appears to be similar, according to the study, to racism or sexisms... which traditionally represent a bias).

so then people who don't like gays and lesbians are biased in that view?

is this a point of agreement?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
so then people who don't like gays and lesbians are biased in that view?

is this a point of agreement?

"people, who don't like gays and lesbians because they're gay or lesbian, are biased"

Keeps us from dealing with more "they have biases on one thing, therefore we can't reference their factual articles" problems.

 

[sweetnpetite]

"people, who don't like gays and lesbians because they're gay or lesbian, are biased"

Thanks for clarifying.

Didn't understand the last bit-- I'm tired.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
I would say a fear that they have been "contaminated" is evidence of a lack of confidence in their sexuality. How else could they have felt themselves to have been contaminated unless they felt they were susceptible to such contamination?

It could be evidentiary, but its not conclusive (thus my saying that "it isn't necessarily so").

But to answer your question, if they're talking about a social contamination, then they would be afraid of the stigma of associating with gay people--the fear that others would see them as gay--and not that they, themselves, could be turned so. In theory, one could be perfectly confidant about one's own sexuality, and still fear others mistaking one for gay. Similar to being confidant that one has done nothing wrong, but fearing being associated with criminals for "how it would look".

Our original discussion was about exactly such fears. That it is less socially acceptable for a man to "play" with homsexuality in his words/writing/posts than it is for a woman to do so. The "fear of becoming gay" is a large part of this social issue.

Well, I can't say anything intelligent about that, I don't think. It may or may not be socially more or less acceptable (I'm inclined to think it is less, too, but I cannot prove it). I don't think I argued with that point, anywhere in this thread. Only that "it isn't necessarily the case that homophobic people are confused about, lack confidence in, or are repressing anything about their own sexuality".

This is what should be done in the first place if you do not wish the writings of the other article writers to influence the view your audience will have of the research being cited. Almost always better to go directly to the original. Language may be a barrier, especially for our non-native english speakers. Still, at least it comes unburdened with a right-wing christian agenda. We are not all Christians here.

I referenced an article that was substanively accurate. I have absolutely no problems with that, nor should I. The article represents no biases, the one you mentioned was a misunderstanding on your part of the meaning of one of the study's terms... not the article's use of it (which was just reporting). I, nor the rules or practices of good scholarship, have a problem with such a reference.

The article doesn't bear a "right-wing Christian agenda". At least, not as far as I can tell. If you want to read things that are "not the article", I can't stop you... nor can I speak intelligently on those things while dealing with the topic at hand.

 

[sweetnpetite]

After reading the all the Olympic stories, I have noticed that there are few references to gay males. I find this curious, since there are plenty of gay women in these stories.

I wondered why this is - if, in the fantasy of satire, humour etc. seemingly straight women can be gay, why the aversion to a gay male sex scene? Are people afraid of writing a scene in, afraid of offending tender male ego's? Why is it acceptable for lesbian scenes? Are we unconciously catering to the male reader?

I dunno, just a thought, and a conversation for a Saturday morning.

Just to remind us all of the original topic...

(in case anyone cares )

PS- Joe, did you answer any of these questions for your self? Just curious. I'd rather here your personal answers than your theories about homophobia. (at least as far as relating to this thread) Thanks.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
PS- Joe, did you answer any of these questions for your self? Just curious. I'd rather here your personal answers than your theories about homophobia. (at least as far as relating to this thread) Thanks.

I think homophobia is natural, as much a part of human nature as territorialness over property, as much a part as being dominant and abusively possessive with women (being a man). However, I believe that overcoming nature has been a distinctly human trait as well.

We endeavor to overcome the natural occurance that is cancer, we ought endeavor to overcome our own natural intolerances. We don't have to label them "disorders" to do that, and maybe we shouldn't... maybe honesty with ourselves is the best policy.

 

[minsue]

Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

I think homophobia is natural, as much a part of human nature as territorialness over property, as much a part as being dominant and abusively possessive with women (being a man). However, I believe that overcoming nature has been a distinctly human trait as well.

We endeavor to overcome the natural occurance that is cancer, we ought endeavor to overcome our own natural intolerances. We don't have to label them "disorders" to do that, and maybe we shouldn't... maybe honesty with ourselves is the best policy.

Wow. That was, at least as I read it, the exact opposite of what SnP asked of you, Joe.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

I think homophobia is natural, as much a part of human nature as territorialness over property, as much a part as being dominant and abusively possessive with women (being a man). However, I believe that overcoming nature has been a distinctly human trait as well.

We endeavor to overcome the natural occurance that is cancer, we ought endeavor to overcome our own natural intolerances. We don't have to label them "disorders" to do that, and maybe we shouldn't... maybe honesty with ourselves is the best policy.

As far as 'human nature' and natural behavior, I think that *all* human behaivor is 'natural' and 'human nature' including phobias, disorders and phobias. I don't believe that there is one* 'human nature' as in --it's just human nature for man to be greedy and competative. I believe that they are elements* of human nature, as are all things that humans are capable of. Cancer, as you said is natural, but that doesn't mean that it's healthy.

So to me, it doesn't really make sense to say that something is not a disorder or a disease simply because it's natural.


So weather homophobia is natural or not, for me doesn't really anser the question of weather or not it's a disorder.

anyway, I really meant your views on the original questions of gay sex in stories, not about homophobia...

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

Originally posted by minsue
Wow. That was, at least as I read it, the exact opposite of what SnP asked of you, Joe.

Oops... you're right.

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
As far as 'human nature' and natural behavior, I think that *all* human behaivor is 'natural' and 'human nature' including phobias, disorders and phobias. I don't believe that there is one* 'human nature' as in --it's just human nature for man to be greedy and competative. I believe that they are elements* of human nature, as are all things that humans are capable of. Cancer, as you said is natural, but that doesn't mean that it's healthy.

So to me, it doesn't really make sense to say that something is not a disorder or a disease simply because it's natural.

So weather homophobia is natural or not, for me doesn't really anser the question of weather or not it's a disorder.

anyway, I really meant your views on the original questions of gay sex in stories, not about homophobia...

I don't know.

I think it's probably because its unnatural... counter-instinctive. Maybe because of a looooooong standing social stigma spilling over unintentionally into our views of what is popular.

 

[minsue]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

Oops... you're right.



I don't know.

I think it's probably because its unnatural... counter-instinctive. Maybe because of a looooooong standing social stigma spilling over unintentionally into our views of what is popular.

I know I'm right.

I'm also curious to know your answer.

 

[Guest]

I referenced an article that was substanively accurate. I have absolutely no problems with that, nor should I. The article represents no biases, the one you mentioned was a misunderstanding on your part of the meaning of one of the study's terms... not the article's use of it (which was just reporting). I, nor the rules or practices of good scholarship, have a problem with such a reference.

The article doesn't bear a "right-wing Christian agenda". At least, not as far as I can tell. If you want to read things that are "not the article", I can't stop you... nor can I speak intelligently on those things while dealing with the topic at hand.

Joe -

Despite safeguards, it stands to reason (*grin*) that most types of research studies are biased.

Individual or groups of human researchers select the study parameters before they begin.

They direct the focus of the study.

They choose which information they feel is relevant and which they will include as the study proceeds.

If there are human subjects, they select those, as well.

They choose what level of significance they will deem acceptable.

Especially when dealing with human nature, I think it's damn near impossible to declare that a particular study "has no biases."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetsubsarahh
Joe -

Despite safeguards, it stands to reason (*grin*) that most types of research studies are biased.

Individual or groups of human researchers select the study parameters before they begin.

They direct the focus of the study.

They choose which information they feel is relevant and which they will include as the study proceeds.

If there are human subjects, they select those, as well.

They choose what level of significance they will deem acceptable.

Especially when dealing with human nature, I think it's damn near impossible to declare that a particular study "has no biases."

So, investigating the matter and seeing how it was designed (the experiment) is essential before labeling any science "biased". The study doesn't appear to have it. I don't know that the study was biased--in the sense that it was inaccurate. It appears to be fine. Well designed.

 

[minsue]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

I know I'm right.

I'm also curious to know your answer.

*bump*

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

Originally posted by minsue
*bump*

The question was why the aversion to gayness, right? (correct me if I'm wrong).

My answer is

I don't know.

I think it's probably because its unnatural... counter-instinctive. Maybe because of a looooooong standing social stigma spilling over unintentionally into our views of what is popular.

 

[minsue]

Thank you

 

[sweetnpetite]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

The question was why the aversion to gayness, right? (correct me if I'm wrong).

My answer is

does female gayness bother you equally?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
does female gayness bother you equally?

Not equally, no. Two unattractive women getting it on is a little... disgusting to me. Two attractive women getting it on is arousing. Two guys, attractive or not, is very disgusting to me.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

...Two attractive women getting it on is arousing. Two guys, attractive or not, is very disgusting to me.

But, Joe

Don't you realize how illogical that is?

If they truly are lesbian, they won’t have any impulse to share with you at all.

If the men are truly gay, they might.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Virtual_Burlesque
But, Joe

Don't you realize how illogical that is?

If they truly are lesbian, they won’t have any impulse to share with you at all.

If the men are truly gay, they might.

Sure. Being irrational isn't a crime. There are a lot of things I think that aren't rational at all... I confess I spend a good deal of time working through them to best understand them.

I don't confess to understand /why/ I feel that way, just that I do.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... Being irrational isn't a crime....

http://jm.g.free.fr/smileys/yeah.gif

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Being irrational isn't a crime.

Then can you take these handcuffs off?

Unless you have something else in mind. Shall I contaminate somebody?


Jus' kiddin' buckaroo.