- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Scientific Proof: Homophobia Linked to Repressed Homosexuality
It is commonly true that those most opposed to gay rights, are those with repressed homosexual urges. Well, surprise, surprise, there is scientific proof that is exactly the case.
An an article in Scientific American shows that of two groups of self-reported heterosexual males (one being homophobic and one non-homophobic), the homophobic group showed a good deal of sexual reponse on a penile plethysmograph that measured their sexual stimulation to three different kinds of pornography.
By the way, the homophobic and non-homophobic criteria were based on answers to a questionnaire. The pornography was male/female, lesbian and male/male. The non-homophobic and homophobic were both stimulated strongly by the first two groups, but the non-homophobic were only slightly stimulated according to the meters, by the gay male porn.
Well, the homophobic group was though, pretty excited by the gay male pornography. In fact, 80% of the homophobic group showed a moderate to definite response to this pornograpy v. 34% for the non-homophobic group. That is an overwhelming difference in reaction between the two groups.
In a second study, homophobic males in a type of game, delivered longer and more intense shocks to individuals they believed were gay males v the shock that non-homophobic males gave to gay males. Both homophobic and non-homophobic males delivered the same type and range of shocks to what they believed were heterosexual males.
There was of course, no actual males, gay or not, being shocked. This was after viewing gay pornography. Obviously the gay pornography set off anger and emotional trauma in the repressed, homophobic males.
photo by Nyboer Creative
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
AIts that way so often. the
AIts that way so often. the founder of the hate group FRC, and heead of the National association for treatment of homosexuality was caught taking pretty boy Jo-Vanni Roman with him on a 2 week vacation to Europe. Jo-Vanni admitted his job was to give George Reker, a carreerist gay hater, massages on his private parts.
the other part of the story is that if you check rentboy.com, you'll find that the approx cost of an "escort" for two weeks is about $15000-$20,000
time to out all these assholes, no mercy. The list is endless.
From the mouth of those who know!!
In the book PAPER GENDERS the author, who has had a sex change operation and then regretted it, and went back to his natural body writes, and I quote, "Homosexuals, lesbians and transgenders were not born that way, no, not at all. Despite an enormous amount of research being done, no scientific evidence can be found to substantiate this view, yet it is reported as fact. My new book, Paper Genders, provides a well-researched look in the homosexual activist movement and how everyone, including the media, runs and hides from this group of bullies and sexual predators.
The question is: Who has the courage and conviction to stand up for our young kids and our families?
If you go to my websites www.tradingmysorrows.com and www.sexchangeregret.com you will find a lot more information.
Walt Heyer, formerly Laura Jensen Author of Paper Genders Carlsbad, California"
If you want to know if the homosexual movement is healthy just ask Walt Heyer! He should know!
If thats your choice, its your choice
Maybe we should put pictures of famous people who stand against homosexuality, there are quite a few, and evaluate their repressed anger and hostilty...if its too high they could then be deemed a danger to society. And if they had a sexual response, a love/hate response, then on another note if they could be branded HETEROPHOBIC! Scared to admit their own passive-agressive sexual desires for the opposite sex! That can be cured though...dont let fear rule your life!
To what end?
What would we, as a society, then do with those branded homophobic/heterophobic?
Would we lock them up? Put them in some Political Correctness Reeducation Camp?
Who would oversee the new Government entity: Office of Popular Thought Enforcement?
The Democratic National Committee approves of this website.
one thing we should do is sue
one thing we should do is sue the bastards behing the legal support of homophobia and hate.
what price would we put on the lives of 3000 gay kids who commit suicide every year - we've spent a 100 billion or so chasing bin landen down and that was for a one time scene, not annual.
And a univ figured out that marriage is worth about $400,000 in legal / contractual / economic tax benefits over a lifetime.
Any way you cut it, its a trillion to 10 trillion $$ that should be extracted from the right wing churches that promote this problem.
phobic
You're putting all these fruit-cakes in danger by having them belive this crock of bull.
homophobia
homosexuality is something you are born with, i believe that lot of people fight with their inner self and do to the fact religion and parents teach them that being homosexual is a sin they will go to hell for letting there feelings out and living life the way they want.they hold hate with in them self's and realize that hatting is not the choice but to those few they believe its there duty to beat the gay out of people.
Everyone is going off about
the gay agenda and twisting words. This article isn't about any of that, it's the clear and present data of an experiment which has been repeated quite a few times. That's all. Take it or leave it...
Homosexuality is normal
The American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers state:
"There is no scientific basis for distinguishing between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with respect to the legal rights, obligations, benefits, and burdens conferred by civil marriage."
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and that the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships .
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf
The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
The longstanding consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions is that homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variation of human sexual orientation.
http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx
Why we need to legalize gay marriage
This was taken from another poster that shows why we need to legalize gay marriage. If you don't feel for this person after reading it, you simply aren't human.
"I am not sure what our President thinks of this dicission but coming from a poor family and knowing what discrimination is all about I would assume he would not care if "Gays" have equal rights. The whole reason why they are asking for rights to be considered married is from the same reason why I would be for it. My own life partner commited suicide in our home with a gun to his heart. After a 28 year union I was deprived to even go his funeral. We had two plots next to each other. But because we did not have a marriage cirtificate "(Legal Document)" of our union his mother had him cremated and his ashes taken back to Missouri where we came from. That is only one example how painful it is. His suicide tramatized me so much and her disregard for my feelings only added to my heartach. That happened on March 21 of 2007 and I still cannot type this without crying for the trauma I have to endure each day. Oh did I mention I am in an electric wheelchair for life? Yes I am and it is very diffacult to find another mate when you are 58 and in a wheelchair. "
Homosexuality is normal and biological
The National Library of Medicine pubs confirm that sexual orientation is natural, biologically induced in the first trimester of pregnancy, morally neutral, immutable, neither contagious nor learned, bearing no relation to an individuals ability to form deep and lasting relationships , to parent children, to work or to contribute to society.
From the American Psychological Association: homosexuality is normal; homosexual relationships are normal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association have endorsed civil marriage for same-sex couples because marriage strengthens mental and physical health and longevity of couples, and provides greater legal and financial security for children, parents and seniors.
America's premier child/ mental health associations endorse marriage equality.
Homosexuality is not a choice
For those of you claiming homosexuality is a "lifestyle", that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 ,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276 /
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172 /
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
And it should also be noted that:
"It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organizations do believe it is impossible to change a person's sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association."
Homosexuality is not a sin
To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.
http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/reclaiming.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com /
http://www.mccchurch.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Resources&Template =/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2121
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence.html
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.goodhopemcc.org/spirituality/sexuality-and-bible/homosexuality-not-a-sin-not-a-sickness.html
I only have a problem with
the statement that against gay rights is homophobic. It's like saying being against gun rights is saying you hate white people. Gay rights is only really meaning gay marriage not rights as a human. The term is used to incite feelings for mistreatment of someone as a person when it's not. In reality they mistreat themselves by listening to a political party that has done nothing for them.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
Against
You should really read the article in Scientific American. They provide a rigorous definition of homophobia that does not relate to ones position on gay rights...
"In this study, 64 self-reported straight males with a mean age of 20.3 years were divided into two groups (“non-homophobic men” and “homophobic men”) on the basis of their scores on a questionnaire measure of aversion to gay males. Here, homophobia was operationally defined as the degree of “dread” experienced when placed in close quarters with a homosexual—basically, how comfortable or uncomfortable the person was in interacting with gay people."
The study did not use "Do you support marriage for homosexuals? No, then that makes you a homophobe" as the definition of homophobia. Rather it uses bits akin to "how comfortable would you feel sharing a gym shower with someone you knew to be a homosexual?"
Who the hell would be
comfortable with someone that could be attracted to them showering with them?
You would feel comfortable showering with someone that has made sexual comments about males as hot? Whether they be a male or female?
That is the dumbest question ever.
I hate showering with anyone period. Straight or not straight I don't care. I don't want to see your stuff and I sure the hell do not want to share what I have.
I don't even like peeing at urinals that don't have a partition.
And these questions are just as bias as the people doing the test. They had a set idea.
I don't trust test like this.
Men are more sexual than women over all. And it's easier to tell, physically, when a man is aroused. That doesn't mean they are attracted.
The argument for men being raped by women is if your penis is hard you liked it. WRONG. Men get turned on by lots of things. Wrong movement in clothes or right movement depending on how you look at it.
If you were molested and you were hard. Does that mean you liked some stranger touching you? based on this stupid test it does.
Do I think that homophobic people have hidden homosexual desires? Yes. I think that it's highly possible.
Does this test make it true? No.
It's a bad test.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
comfort
What exactly makes you uncomfortable about showering next to someone who is attracted to you?
I've showered with women before... its fun.
And I've likely showered in the company of homosexuals as well, but that knowledge hardly bothers me.
Its not like you have to have sex with someone if they are attracted to you.
You are correct in that men can be raped by women... but that is hardly relevant to the topic of men having consensual sex with other men.
You really didn't read the study did you. They exposed two groups of men to the same visual stimulus (male homosexual pornography) and found that those who reported being uncomfortable around homosexuals were more likely to be aroused by images of gay sex.
Oh, ok
so you would be comfortable showering next to someone that has been hitting on you and you've been telling them no?
What exactly should make me comfortable? You ask the most stupidest question as if you don't know humans at all.
Of course. You wanted to see them naked for free. Dirty person.
Don't lie that you didn't look. Don't say you didn't want to either. Or had no intent. That is the reason to shower....is to look. Straight or not...that's what happens.
Liar. It bothers you. No need for hardly.
No, it's flirting--though.
Nope. It's on topic and if you can't tell why, I don't care any more.
That men can be aroused by two turtles having sex would mean what? Since you can tell intent by a hard penis. I'm glad you're an expert.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
ahh welll
Now you present a slightly different scenario. After all there is a fairly large difference between showering with someone that is sexually attracted to men and showering with someone that has made continued unwanted advances towards me.
Yet still no... that wouldn't make me personally uncomfortable.
According to the statistics ~10% of the population is gay... so if you use public shower facilities (such as at the gym) with any sort of frequency then you are likely to have showered next to a homosexual at some point.
So what is the difference between knowing / not knowing that a person is a homosexual if they do not make any advances towards you?
The reason to shower is to look? And this whole time I thought i was to wash ones body off. Imagine that, I've been taking showers since i was ~9 years old and all this time I've been doing it incorrectly.
It is rather interesting how you seem to know what bothers me more then I do.
When women rape men there is force involved, rather different from viewing pornography.
Sure they can... However, again, you miss the point of the study...
It isn't that a percentage of straight men are aroused by gay pornography, or that a percentage of those who report being uncomfortable around homosexuals are aroused by gay porn... but rather that when you show two populations of straight men gay porn the population that reports the most discomfort around homosexuals is also the population where the most arousal takes place.
it is amazing
That you know what normal people shouldn't be bothered by. Seeing how you don't know right from wrong because if fear.
I've read enough to know this study has no legs and based on how you cannot back it convincingly or take it serious, you agree.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
know
I'm not saying that they should not be bothered by it... I'm asking "why are they bothered by it?"
This is a preliminary study, with a rather small population, but the results are statistically significant enough to provide some support to the underlying hypothesis.
Your response to this study is rather interesting as well... are you worried that your own discomfort around homosexuals is due to latent homosexual desires on your part?
Small studies
are not significant. I also read on random events and things that make many people look special when they're not. It's just luck. The study is flawed.
I don't have discomfort. You're taking my dislike of seeing naked people as discomfort. I don't want to see anyone naked unless I want to see them. And in my studies that are countless...those that shower in public like to be naked and like to see other people naked. Whether they admit to it or not their blood flow speaks differently.
Why does that accusation bother you? Because it's true?
If humans were meant to be naked around one another no one would wear clothes. Do you wear clothes? Case closed.
I'm not doing this entire I have friends or I've worked with thing with you. Liberals like to make people look evil for giving an opinion. You're, apparently, no different.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
evil
Where exactly am I making you look evil?
I'm sorry
where are you making judgments about who I spend time with?
A lot.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
study
The results of the study are statistically significant enough to warrant further studies... that is what small studies like this are for, to give direction to future research.
How exactly have you done countless studies on the subject? Do you really spend enough time talking to men in public showers to get a statistically significant portion of the population?
We wear cloths due to cultural and environmental factors, not because they are a fundamental part of our anatomy...
The study
is interesting, but not factual. I agree with the outcome, however, the problem is that it's far too small to be significant. They'll have to do it again on a larger scale.
I'm making up an idea just like they have.
Yes, we were clothes because we don't want to be naked. If you like being naked so much, be a nudist. Don't bs me with environmental factors. Please.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
factual
Unless you can show that the data was made up the study is factual. However the sample group is to small to project the results onto the general population.
Unlike you they actually provided data to back up their claims, where as you just made stuff up.
We wear cloths because of our cultural conditioning or because of the environment we are in (here in SE Va it has been hovering around 3C all day, far to cold to be baring it). Other cultures do not have the same conditioning, and live in climates where nudity does not have the same stigma that it does in the USA.
Oh, so you just believe
whatever study is said to be a study. How...smart.
Small group = poor findings. They have to have a better pool of people than just a few.
Not good data.
You wear clothes because you want to. No other reason.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
study
Unless you can show that the data was falsified, or provide a better model to describe their results then I'll stick with the studies results.
Good preliminary data, enough to suggest further study is warranted.
Well right now I'm wearing cloths because the temperature is close to freezing, and it is raining. There is also the dress code my job which, while comparatively lax (ties are not required), does require a level of formality that nudity does not provide.
It's not about it being falsified
it's about it being not good enough.
Everyone knows you take a small amount of people to dictate what a large population does that it's not nearly as accurate as the study would have on believe.
Poor preliminary data. Teasing isn't science . Either do it right, or don't bother.
That's not an excuse. If nudity is right. It matters not the temp. Then you are someone that doesn't believe in nudity as right.
Answered. Your in general tone doesn't work with me. Either answer for yourself or don't bother.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
good enough
It is good enough for you to spend considerable effort trying to dispute the results.
You are, rather surprisingly, correct that the results of this study do not map to the general population. However the results are significant enough to warrant further research.
How exactly does temperature not matter? It was 2c in SE Va this morning, so even if I had the right to go around naked it would still be very uncomfortable to do so.
I'm not sure what you mean by "right to be nude"... I was nude this morning when I took a shower, and if it was warm enough to be comfortable (as it gets in my area during the summer) then the only reason to be clothed would be personal choice/compliance with local laws. It is no more a question of right/wrong then growing a beard is right/wrong.
That's like telling someone
they have dispute being called a racist. It's a joke. You can't toss something out there with no backing. Just because you can five other people that can repeat the same thing doesn't mean much.
You wish this to be so true that you will go to any lengths to disregard how science works. Amazing.
Just like a false accusation warrants someone to question how someone acts with their racist cover classes. Data will not be tainted with the "oh this points to this...instead of it being clear what it should point to, they will state that it helps what they already believed to be true. Like you. If you helped in the study you would want the evidence to point toward it being true, not the evidence pointing toward an answer.
Meaning humans were not made to be naked.
It would be because you don't want to always be nude. You're not a never nude, but you sure are someone that is easily persuaded by your location. Not a strong enough mind, I see.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
made
This is a bit more then finding five other people to agree, it is a test based on objective parameters.
The real amazing point is how obsessed you are with having this be a false result... to the point where you refuse to see that this experiment is Scientific.
I don't wish it were true, I just find the results significant enough to warrant a larger study.
Humans were not made to be anything... so that much is true. However people can spend their lives nude in areas where the climate permits it.
Correct, I don't always want to be nude... when it is very cold out I want to be warm, plus I want to keep my job and otherwise not be arrested. I also enjoy being rather stylish, but have no actual issues with being nude.
I don't think it was objective
I think they had the answer they wanted in their head and worked toward it. People have accused homophobic people of this for a long time. How one can be objective with the idea and do a test, I don't see how that's remotely possible. You can't even do it now without being all giddy.
It isn't scientific. NOT ENOUGH evidence. Just a drop. I'm obsessed with truth. You're not.
IN GENERAL CRAP--ignored.
therefore you choose to wear clothes and are not comfortable being nude. Thank you. You can't be stylish nude? Self centered.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
think
You can think that all you want... but that will not make it true.
If they had the answer before hand then how did they insure that they got the results they needed?
Since the people were placed in their homophobic vs nonhomophobic groups before they were exposed to the pornography there was no way for the researchers to bias the groups... and since each person was exposed to the same set of pornographic material there would be no way to for the researchers to ensure that the homophobic group was more aroused (or the nonhomophobic group was less aroused).
And in general people breath oxygen.
I am comfortable being nude, just not when it is freezing outside.
And if you don't think nude can be stylish you haven't seen much Greek/Roman sculpture
Same could be said
right back at you. You're so in general it's disturbing.
You can think that all you want... but that will not make it true.
What kind of stupid question is that?
How did they decide who was homophobic? They didn't explain that very well. How did they describe pornography?
How do you know it was the same set? Were you there?
And what is arousal? How much?
So do dogs.
Then you're not comfortable being nude.
Not stylish even then.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
general
What specifics are you after exactly?
You are correct in that just because I think something is true does not make it true... for that to be the case I would need data to back up my assertions (which I have).
How is it a stupid question? You claim that their results are biased, I'm asking for the evidence that backs up that assertion.
Yes they did... they presented a quiz wherein those involved in the study were asked to rate their comfort in a series of scenarios (like how comfortable the person would be showering next to someone they new was homosexual). Based on the responses the participants were placed in either the homophobic group (for those whose responses were primarily uncomfortable) or the non homophobic group (those who were primarily comfortable):
Pornography was defined as images of heterosexual sex, female homosexual sex, and male homosexual sex.
It was in their description of the study.
I never claimed that I was always comfortable being nude, just that when the weather was nice I was.
By your definition of stylish perhaps... but most of the art world would disagree with you.
You don't have data
you have words from a study that took the smallest amount of people and suggested that it's how all people work.
I do. Their small study is evidence. If they did a bigger actual real study there would be no bias. Of course with things like this (and polls for statistics) they skewer what they have to get the answers they wanted.
They had to have a hypothesis prior. How many thought that they'd get this answer? If it's the majority, how is that not bias?
Oh, so if you hate showering with other people you are automatically homophobic? Or closer than someone that's a slut showerer? Ok.
uncomfort has not proven to be homophobic. That's like saying black men afraid of white copes are racist.
That is too in general a description. What kind of sex? You are telling me that if you were blindfolded and they had someone give you oral sex you could tell the difference between male and female by mouth alone? The point? Point is that males are different than females. In this way in particular...getting off can almost not matter..if one is to base this on just male and how one wants sex being male. Meaning that males are turned on by lots of things that they don't admit to only because they don't want to seem like something. Hence why males can make almost anything sexual. Women tend to need feeling and emotion. Men do not. Gay or straight.
Then you're not comfortable being nude if you have to limit when you are.
Art is hardly ever stylish.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
suggested
They took a small number of people and published a suggestion that the statistically significant results could indicate a broader trend.
You say they skewer the results... but have yet to support that assertion with evidence.
If having a hypothesis before hand counts as an unacceptable bias then that would make every experiment ever performed invalid.
It was specific to showering with someone known to be a homosexual. Also, how does not being uncomfortable showering around people make a person a slut?
Uncomfortable around white cops, probably not... but uncomfortable around white people in general could indicate a person who is afraid (irrationally so?) of white people.
I'd have to say that I would not likely be able to determine the sex of a person based on their BJ... but then I also fail to see how that is at all relevant to the discussion at hand... after all if the arousal was a general phenomena then there would have been no difference between the arousal levels of the two groups. Further in your scenario the test subject is ignorant of the gender of the person giving the BJ, while in the study above the test subject knew the genders of those in the pornography.
Sure, and I'm comfortable eating until I am full.
Then you haven't seen much art.
A trend that's totally
made up to hate on people for made up scientific reasons.
Neither have you supported yours and this study isn't evidence. It's lack thereof. Catch-22.
No. Because people guessed on what would be the outcome of something that they couldn't control the end result too. This, you can control the end result to a little too much. Especially with a handful of people.
Don't like my slut comment? Too bad.
Well white cops is the same as homosexual men.
It is relevant. You would enjoy it no because of the stimulation. The point is that men are not women. Men can get excited by their pants moving the wrong way. The idea of limiting the excitement into categories in hopes of making what they wish true...true...makes me laugh.
And you said yourself that they were all aroused, just some were more so than others.
Eating isn't constant like nudity should be if you're so comfortable with it.
Neither have you. Because the best art isn't popular until death of the artist and that's not very stylish.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
trend
The trend is not made up, it emerges quite clearly from the data that the team gathered.
Nope, the study is evidence... just not conclusive evidence.
How did they control the results? With magic powers?
It isn't a matter of dislike... rather it is a matter of irrelevance. Not being bothered showering around other people doesn't equate to sexual promiscuity.
How does a heterosexual being nervous around homosexuals equate to a black man being nervous around white cops?
We can add women to the increasingly long list of things that you know nothing about then.
If it was just the general arousal men experience when confronted with sexual imagery then why did the homophobic group show a statistically significant increase in arousal?
Nudity does not have to be constant either for someone to be comfortable being nude.
That doesn't make good art any less stylish.
It is not clear.
I suggest they go to Africa and find those that HATE homosexuals so much they want to kill them and ask them to be part of the study. That would help them understand more what they're dealing with than picking people as they have done here.
Not evidence at all, if it's not conclusive.
With picking people themselves by ways that are questionable.
Yes it does. It certainly does show that, why else would you want to shower around others but to look at them?
It's the same thing. They can be nervous for the same reason. Past experiences. It is not a bad thing. It's just their environment .
Go on, explain women. I will enjoy this.
Statistically is a false word. I want numbers. Then again that would also be manipulated. Therefore I would have to see base numbers and then the changes.
Yes it does. Otherwise you are just normal. You are so in general you confuse it withing being better than others than realizing that it's NORMAL.
It certainly does. Or they would have rich when they were alive.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
foaming at the mouth
If they were studying the population in Africa that would make sense, but they are studying the US population.
Nope, even if it is not conclusive evidence it is still evidence (as long as the proper controls are in place).
How are they picking people in a way that is questionable?
Because they don't want to walk around for the rest of the day stinky?
Explaining women isn't something that can be done in a single post... if indeed a man can explain women to another bloke. Where you are wrong in this instance is in your assumption that women cannot easily become aroused. That whole get aroused by a brush of the pants bit happens to women as well.
Then go and read the study.
So you are saying that it is normal for people to be comfortable being nude?
Styles change over time, and what was once unpopular often becomes popular. There is also the filter effect that time brings, which strips away the competitors.
They are studying
homophobia or not? If they are specifically studying only American Homophobia then this is even a worse study. Is it not the same everywhere? If you are a homophobic here you are there....or are you now going to tell me this was a study only for the state of insane liberal California?
They didn't have proper controls. The questions, if yours was an example, were poor and unthoughtout.
Their questions were terrible. Questionable methodology. How uncomfortable are you with someone isn't a gauge of what homophobic means. Don't ask me what I think it means, because you're starting to ask more than answer and that is a reoccurring problem.
Someone that has an UNhealthy fear of something is what normally phobic means. People have healthy fear of heights. They know if they fall they'll die. But they become phobic when it paralyzes them. meaning that if you are homophobic you would hate the person solely because you think they are gay or know they are gay and that is that. Uncomfortness is normal human reaction. People get uncomfortable around people they don't even know. Are they phobic? OHNOSE....no.
And they like to see naked people.
I didn't say they can't become easily aroused. I said they can't become easily aroused like men.
If they can't put the right gist in the article, why bother?
How is it not normal to feel comfortable being nude to shower in their own home?
I know how you ask questions, try harder next time.
There's also the death thing.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
cultural
When you conduct studies it is important to control for as many factors as possible. This includes making sure that the groups being experimented on are uniform in most respects. There is also the cost that would be associated with going to Uganda to conduct such a study (and safety issues ax well).
Just saying the controls were improper does not make them improper. The questions seem quite proper in gauging ones level of comfort/discomfort around homosexuals (with a high level of discomfort around homosexuals strongly indicating homophobia).
So your major point of disagreement is with the use of the term homophobia, not with the results of the study... which show that the more uncomfortable a person is around known homosexuals the more likely they are to be aroused by gay pron?
What exactly leads you to say that people use public showers because they like seeing people naked? Besides your own, personal, research into this matter?
Again women can become aroused as easily as men.
You mean the article in SciAm that the people who ran the study did not write?
They seemed
because you're bias. You agreed with the idea of the answer before you read the study. Why would it strongly indicate that? because you want everyone to agree with how you view homosexuality?
Control freak.
Studies on homophobia shouldn't be limited to the onesided view of those that conducted this study.
You need to ask better questions. I dislike your lawyer mentality. It's like a poor double agent.
No they cannot. They can be easily aroused, but not like men. They don't have a penis.
You mean you can't ask a question without sounding condescending?
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
one, sungular sensation...
How would my agreeing with the study change its outcome?
I could want as much as I like, but that wouldn't change the numbers.
In what way am I a control freak? In that I insist that I insist that the proper procedures are followed to ensure that the study is as bias free as possible? That is how Science works.
Studies on homosexuality are not limited to just this one study... research into it (and human sexuality in general) is a very diverse field.
You can dislike it all you want... but the question remains: how do you know that people who use public showers like to look at other people naked?
Well at least you understand some basic biology! But the penis/no penis bit is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
You are the one asking why the people who did not write the article left things out of the article they did not write... the article in SciAm was written by a journalist that read the study, not those who performed the study.
How does you not
reading ruin my post? It does, which is why you do it.
You can want as much as you want and change how you see the results and alter who failed in what way. This study isn't all numbers, by the way.
They were not followed, no procedure of proper anything was followed. If they asked that shower question, they their limit of what is and isn't homophobia is like a penny of room. It's terrible. That's not how YOU work, though.
Control Freak because you have to have your way or no way. Your right is right, period.
It's not so diverse here. It's limited.
Why else would they? You go in there, you get a cheap show and you shower. If you don't look, it's because you're blind. And if you don't want to look then you'd choose a different location to shower. Or you'd do much anything else if looking isn't what you plan on doing.
It is relevant. Or you wouldn't dismiss it to win.
Wow, thank you for that apparent long winded answer.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
one study
You are correct that one study is not diverse... but that is because it is one study. Studies are focused because that is the only way to get clear results on a question.
And that women don't have penises is irrelevant to a discussion about two groups that do have penises (two groups of men).
You are the one who asked why those that did not write the article make the article clearer.
Clear results come from
more than small groups of people chosen via their want not at random.
It isn't. Because if they were the same women would have been in the study as well.
I said that they all did a bad job.
Article included.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)