Something for the Homophobic (23)

alexandraa's profile . alexandraa's homepage

Replies

26 Jan 07, 11:19 PM
fen_fatale
UK(CB), 4 yrs

secretcrokus wrote:

sunhillow wrote:
Ooops personal agenda alert!
I take it back what I said about the gay/analsex relationship. What's truely worse is when people are so homophobic that any post of gay sex or homophobic innuendos are suspected as being an attack.
The key word here is 'suspected', knowledge is rarely created by suspicion alone, but by fact.
I know my place

26 Jan 07, 11:25 PM
tom_tom
UK(SO), 3 yrs
Journal article - (pdf) (html)

The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. 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). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
I have seen the fnords.

26 Jan 07, 11:42 PM
Telesto
UK, 4 yrs

fen_fatale wrote:
The key word here is 'suspected', knowledge is rarely created by suspicion alone, but by fact.
grasshopper...
that sentence SOUNDS profound; but is total crap.
so... 'fact' creates 'knowledge', according to you. can we have your definition of 'fact'?

26 Jan 07, 11:42 PM
fen_fatale
UK(CB), 4 yrs

alexandraa wrote:
This data supports the theory that homophobia is often indicative of repressed, self-loathing homosexual feelings; and that many homophobes use anti-gay rhetoric as a smoke screen to disguise their own homosexuality.

The part that you missed off from this experiment is the other conclusion that they came up with to the study, (the part which urges caution in forming one definite conclusion from the results)
The alternative explaination this study offered to explain its findings was

An alternative hypothesis, which they attribute to Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck, focuses on the role of anxiety in sexual responsiveness. It postulates 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." Thus, the homophobic men's increased arousal is a response to a perceived threat rather than to stimuli they find sexually arousing.

I know my place

27 Jan 07, 8:46 AM
alexandraa
UK(NW), 5 yrs
I simply cut and paste from a research site. None of those words were my own but I suggest anyone feeling the need to attack or defend needs to think about WHY they feel the need to attack or defend and indeed why, on THIS site, they feel the need to attack people's sexuality.
PUUUUUhhhhhhhhhhhleeeeaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Get a grip.
If we can't understand and accept all and every form of sexuality going then why on earth would we expect anyone at all to understand and accept our sexuality?
The ignorance and prejudice that comes up on this site on occasion completely confuses and upsets me.
As for Loki and his girly PJs and teddies I bet there are plenty of 40 year olds out there who do the same. I know of a couple I could mention for a start. More power to your arm Loki.

Be careful what you wish for
Edited 27 Jan 07, 8:50 AM by alexandraa

27 Jan 07, 8:57 AM
alexandraa
UK(NW), 5 yrs

fen_fatale wrote:
Thus, the homophobic men's increased arousal is a response to a perceived threat rather than to stimuli they find sexually arousing.
I saw that too but felt it would only add to the argument and look like I was having a go rather than simply trying to make a point.
After all if you feel threatened by homosexual activity that's not a positive response either is it? And why would you feel threatened if you are comfortable with your own sexuality and confident in yourself as a person?
But then I don't understand prejudice.
Be careful what you wish for
Edited 27 Jan 07, 8:58 AM by alexandraa

27 Jan 07, 9:10 AM
alexandraa
UK(NW), 5 yrs

sunhillow wrote:
Ooops personal agenda alert!
Isn't blogging about personal agenda's?
That aside I suspect you misunderstand my agenda on this one. My closest and dearest friends, without whom I would be lost, include a homosexual man and 3 bisexual women.
So no I'm not going to sit back and accept prejudice about same sex sex and I'm shocked that anyone on this site would do so.

Be careful what you wish for

27 Jan 07, 9:21 AM
fen_fatale
UK(CB), 4 yrs

alexandraa wrote:
I simply cut and paste from a research site. None of those words were my own
Thats why it is always sensible to take into consideration the full story instead of just picking and choosing parts that suit your own argument, objectivity comes from being able to evaluate both sides, not just one.

alexandraa wrote:
but I suggest anyone feeling the need to attack or defend needs to think about WHY they feel the need to attack or defend and indeed why, on THIS site, they feel the need to attack people's sexuality. If we can't understand and accept all and every form of sexuality going then why on earth would we expect anyone at all to understand and accept our sexuality?
I am sure that people do both understand, and accept others sexuality, it still doesn't mean that they have to adopt that particular practice themselves in order to accept and understand it! 90% of people on here will state in their profile "i don't do scat" this does not actually mean they are attacking those that do, they are merely asserting their right of choice, that there is a sexual practice that they are aware of that they do not wish to indulge in personally.
People have a right to whatever they wish to believe in, and the right to practice whatever they wish to practice, so long as it does not alter the freedom of choice of another person, and the OP did not actually say that he felt homosexuality in itself was wrong, his posting was saying albeit rather passionately that it was just not for him, and that it was fine for them to practice whatever they wanted. The second part of the post was a personal opinion about whether or not same sex couples make adequate role models as parents, something he publically holds an opinion of, but would not act upon to subvert others from doing so, and whether or not it was right that the Catholic church should be legislated against to change its own opinions and moral principles on homosexuality. It was the attempt of the Government to subvert peoples freedom of choice and moral integrity that he disagreed with! We all hold opinions; some publically vocalise these for the sake of question and debate, some don't.

alexandraa wrote:
The ignorance and prejudice that comes up on this site on occasion completely confuses and upsets me.
Everybody has their own prejudices and ignorance about things, we all do it! we all speak out about things we dislike that do not suit our own particular MO for whatever reason, we do not live in a 'live and let live' society. Taking some random examples of prejudice; some have prejudice against chelsea tractors, some against casinos - attacking those who indulge in these at will. If we all scrutinise ourselves, we will all find something that we have a prejudice over and where we will attempt to put another person down, when they are simply exersizing their right to freedom of choice and will.

I know my place

27 Jan 07, 11:20 AM
Smartarse
UK(CM), 3 yrs
This thread deeply saddens me. Four of the ladies involved in this scrap are people I've exchanged memos with in the past. I have great affection and respect for all of you and I don't like to see you falling out with each other.
I'm pretty sure you all agree that homophobia is a bad thing and that tolerance toward other peoples lifestyle choices and sexuality is a good thing. That broad agreement is all that matters here. Ask yourselves if the other points are really worth bitter argument.

27 Jan 07, 11:35 AM
Sunhillow
UK, 3 yrs

alexandraa wrote:

sunhillow wrote:
Ooops personal agenda alert!
Isn't blogging about personal agenda's?
It depends what you mean by "personal agenda". IMHO there are some types of "personal agenda" for which i don't think they shouldn't be used.

alexandraa wrote:
That aside I suspect you misunderstand my agenda on this one. My closest and dearest friends, without whom I would be lost, include a homosexual man and 3 bisexual women.
So no I'm not going to sit back and accept prejudice about same sex sex and I'm shocked that anyone on this site would do so.
No, i certainly didn't understand your blog/pasted article to be about about prejudice against homosexuality or bisexuality, or any kind of sexuality because that isn't what it was about. It was about the theory that homophobes are really latent homosexuals repressing their true sexuality.
~i know i have the right to remain silent... i just don't have the ability!~
~My mind has a tendency to wander... but sometimes it leaves altogether!~

Next page


	©1997-2009 Informed Consent