Homophobia, nature or nurture?

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Exchemist said that he personally found thoughts of same gender sex, or being 'approached' by a same sex suitor, distasteful, not that he disliked others who engage in such.
He was told this was a learned response.

Well, there is a bit of nuance, as mentioned earlier, one of the question in some of the standard surveys specifically asked whether folks would be uncomfortable with and showing that the comfort is highly contextual.

And this is really the issue when trying to frame it as an innate response. The distaste for being approached is not only dependent on the suitor, but highly dependent on context. I would bet that in a highly professional environment most folks would feel uncomfortable when approached overtly sexually, regardless of ones sexual orientation, for example.

Moreover, I think I may mentioned that folks might be put off by by sexual advances of any folks they are not interested in. While this mechanism might have some innate components, it is clear that it is not specifically targeted at homosexuality. I.e. there are many cues at play that can trigger the distaste reaction. We learn, for example, that this behaviour has no place at work. We might be more receptive in other social settings.

So in short, the feeling of distaste might only be partially learned, but the cues triggering those are social and hence, learned (and therefore also malleable). This is what I tried to address with my comment about hardwired before.

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Do they ridicule those who face the toilet paper the wrong way?

I sure hope so!

1 hour ago, MigL said:

My thinking is somewhat along the same lines as CharonY's post above; like, and dislike, are both learned behavior ( it took a while for me to like lobster and Indian food, and I've learned to dislike Chinese which I used to enjoy )

When did you choose to find women attractive? Did you research it first?

We’re not talking about food, or even about sexual preference. We’re talking about the ostracizing of others based on what THEY prefer, and suggesting that’s evolved somehow is downright laughable.

And even if I’m wrong, I’m not the one making the affirmative claim. The onus to support it is on those saying this distaste did evolve.

More likely the suggestion this is nature not nurture is just an attempt to rationalize a feeling that causes one to feel dissonance and makes it hard to continue thinking of oneself as a good person. If evolution did it to me, after all, then I don’t have to feel bad for giving a shit who others dip their sticks into nor make any efforts whatsoever to change it.

Edited February 3, 2023 by iNow

[MigL]

I find it distateful to discuss my sexuality on a public forum, so let's stick to food ...

4 hours ago, iNow said:

When did you choose to find women attractive? Did you research it first?

I have always liked Italian food.
I grew up with it,and it was the first food I tasted other than mother's milk.
I suppose my sexuality developed the same way.
The first people I wanted to hug, other than my parents were girls.
And I still remember my first kiss, even after all these years.
( I know, I'm a sentimental softie 🙂 )
Who knows how things might have turned ou thad I hugged a boy ...

As for other foods, if I didn't find them too distateful, I tried them.
And no, I don't mean sexual experimentation, but I assume it works the same.

If I am allowed to think certain habits, like spitting, coughing without mouth covering, picking your nose, or scratching your balls is distateful, why am I not allowed to think certain sexual practices are distateful without being branded a homophobe ?

Edited February 4, 2023 by MigL

[iNow]

Disgust over things which spread illness and disease (like spitting, coughing, nose picking, and scrotal scratching) makes good sense in social groups where for centuries even a small cut or stubbed toe could (and rather often did) lead to infection and death.

Disgust over OTHER PEOPLE happening to prefer intimacy with more similarly gendered partners does NOT help prevent the spread of illness and disease.

You are a free man with a free mind and are equally free to feel disgust over any ridiculous damned thing you want, but let’s please drop the charade and stop pretending it serves some higher evolutionary purpose when it’s felt toward non-heterosexuals just for being who they are and loving who they love.

Edited February 4, 2023 by iNow

[mistermack]

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Most won't admit being afraid, or most don't fear it, are you trying to have this both ways? That's a different orientation.

Not at all. If you don't fear something, it's obvious you won't want to admit to fearing it, if you are labelled as having a fear of it. Homophobia for the most part, is a false label. It was originally more of a taunt, than an accurate depiction. Now it's just the usual word for anyone who isn't woke enough to continually sing the praises of gayness. 

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

So you agree that homophobia is unique to humans, a learned behavior based on our brainpower, and something that requires indoctrination into a particular set of societal norms.

In a way yes, no human is immune from societal norms, and nobody gets brought up in a vacuum. I would just say that homo-tolerance is exactly the same, it's a learned behaviour, needs brainpower and indoctrination just the same. 

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Not natural, but rather nurtured by fear and misunderstanding.

Fear and misunderstanding ARE natural.

But there's nothing wrong with tolerance. I would teach kids the same. And please don't quote other animals as being naturally tolerant. If you don't know something exists, that's oblivion, not tolerance.  

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Fear and misunderstanding ARE natural.

But fear is only natural if it's rational, don't you think? Unless you can point to another animal that has irrational fears about how others of its species seek pleasure. 

Even if you ignore nature, what's the motivation for so much violence against homosexuals by homophobes? What do YOU think homophobes are getting so angry about, and do you think these reasons are rational enough to warrant the kinds of aggression we see from them?

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But fear is only natural if it's rational, don't you think?

What if you were traumatized by something as a child? You might harbor an irrational fear, and it would be of an organic orgin.

[TheVat]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

If I am allowed to think certain habits, like spitting, coughing without mouth covering, picking your nose, or scratching your balls is distateful, why am I not allowed to think certain sexual practices are distateful without being branded a homophobe ?

I don't think homophobia enters the behavioral picture if a mere distaste remains a privately held one.  Distaste is a matter of aesthetics, and active dislikes and ensuing hostile action may not follow from that.  There are forms of sexual play that are not my cup of tea, but I'm content to just not do them without malice or prejudice towards those who do.   So I don't think you or I would qualify as phobes of any stripe.  I think this chat is more focused on behaviors that evidence something more than distaste of the "ewwww" variety.  Like aggression and prejudicial treatment.

As for Italian food, our family moved to a predominantly Italian community when I was eleven, and my bland prairie palate was introduced to the cuisine in a big way.  Been crazy about Italian food ever since.  And though I may find the American fast food eaters disgusting, I would still rent an apartment to them.  Poor pitiful creatures!

 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What if you were traumatized by something as a child? You might harbor an irrational fear, and it would be of an organic orgin.

I don't consider that scenario "natural" though, unless the childhood trauma was based on real danger. 

[MigL]

14 hours ago, iNow said:

isgust over OTHER PEOPLE happening to prefer intimacy with more similarly gendered partners does NOT help prevent the spread of illness and disease.

So you're saying it is perfectly acceptable to be disgusted by the practice of sodomy, which causes excessive bleeding, and was a major contributor to the AIDS epidemic ?
And where did the OTHER PEOPLE come from ?

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Distaste is a matter of aesthetics, and active dislikes and ensuing hostile action may not follow from that.  There are forms of sexual play that are not my cup of tea, but I'm content to just not do them without malice or prejudice towards those who do.   So I don't think you or I would qualify as phobes of any stripe.  I think this chat is more focused on behaviors that evidence something more than distaste of the "ewwww" variety.  Like aggression and prejudicial treatment.

Exactly.
Personal distaste means something I myself, would not engage in.

Edited February 4, 2023 by MigL

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

But fear is only natural if it's rational, don't you think?

No I don't think that. If you just take the case of phobias, they are by definition irrational fears, but as far as I know, they occur naturally. In any case, it's rational to be cautious about things you are not familiar with, and don't understand. Rational, and natural. In the case of a sexual advance from a man, that's not familiar, or understood, and having no idea what they have in mind, or how far they will go, then a certain bit of fear is neither unwise, illogical or unnatural. 

 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Even if you ignore nature, what's the motivation for so much violence against homosexuals by homophobes? What do YOU think homophobes are getting so angry about, and do you think these reasons are rational enough to warrant the kinds of aggression we see from them?

The first out-and-out advance I had from a man was a pretty scary experience. I was 21 in 1971, hitchhiking around North America. I was in the outskirts of New York, making for the Bronx. I got a lift from a guy, and my very first thought was that he looked a real hard case. He could have walked straight into a mafia part in a movie without changing anything, but he was polite and friendly enough.
After about ten minutes of driving along, he was asking me about hitching around the US, and out of the blue, he said, "with all that hitching, did you ever get a lift from someone who tried to put a hand on your leg?" and like the innocent that I was, I said "no, that's never happened, I suppose I've been lucky that way!" and he said "because I'd like to now!"
I was stunned because I'd had no hint at all that anything like that was coming. I didn't answer, my mind was racing, mainly weighing up what might happen, and how I might handle it, and he said, "you've gone quiet, would you not like that?" and I said "no, I wouldn't" and he said, "yeh, but would you resist if I did?" and I said, "yes, very definitely", and then he went quiet.
My mind was churning, because I had the impression from the start that he was a hard case, and I wondered if he had a knife or a gun.
Then, after a bit, he said, "I was just joking back then" and I said, "yeh, I thought you were" (lying) and he said that he had to turn off here, and stopped for me to jump out. He then did a U turn, and went back the same way we had come from. I've since had a few advances, much more subtle and friendly than that, and never felt scared like I was by that guy. Generally, it's just the same as having a woman come on to you that you don't fancy. 
Easier to handle, really, because you can just say "sorry I'm not gay" whereas with a woman, you feel obliged to invent some excuse, rather than say "sorry, I don't find you attractive". I've never been a good liar.

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Even if you ignore nature, what's the motivation for so much violence against homosexuals by homophobes? What do YOU think homophobes are getting so angry about, and do you think these reasons are rational enough to warrant the kinds of aggression we see from them?

You seem to be talking about a different species. A more ideal kind of human that doesn't exist. My experience of humans is mixed. There are some lovely people who wouldn't hurt a fly. There are some absolute bastards who glory in violence and aggression. And a lot in the middle. But going back in history, the violence and aggression were much more to the fore. 

We are a violent ape, and inclined to pick on people given the chance. Like gays, jews, gypsies, blacks, catholics, the mentally ill or disabled, or people who support a different football team. It's not excusing people, to point at the "defects" of human nature. It's just recognising reality. The nasty side of human nature is just as real and "natural" as the nice side.
 

Edited February 4, 2023 by mistermack

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I don't consider that scenario "natural" though, unless the childhood trauma was based on real danger. 

It could be real danger, though the risk level may be inflated because the child understands risk even worse than adults do. If you are e.g. afraid of heights because you fell out of a tree as a kid and broke your arm, I’d consider that to be natural. 

I would consider unnatural danger to be purely mental, instilled by people conditioning you. If you’re afraid of heights because somebody convinced you that you’ll fall and break your neck I’d agree that’s probably irrational. 

[geordief]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

first out-and-out advance I had from a man was a pretty scary experience. I was 21 in 1971, hitchhiking around North America. I was in the outskirts of New York, making for the Bronx. I got a lift from a guy, and my very first thought was that he looked a real hard case. He could have walked straight into a mafia part in a movie without changing anything, but he was polite and friendly enough.
After about ten minutes of driving along, he was asking me about hitching around the US, and out of the blue, he said, "with all that hitching, did you ever get a lift from someone who tried to put a hand on your leg?" and like the innocent that I was, I said "no, that's never happened, I suppose I've been lucky that way!" and he said "because I'd like to now!"
I was stunned because I'd had no hint at all that anything like that was coming. I didn't answer, my mind was racing, mainly weighing up what might happen, and how I might handle it, and he said, "you've gone quiet, would you not like that?" and I said "no, I wouldn't" and he said, "yeh, but would you resist if I did?" and I said, "yes, very definitely", and then he went quiet.
My mind was churning, because I had the impression from the start that he was a hard case, and I wondered if he had a knife or a gun.
Then, after a bit, he said, "I was just joking back then" and I said, "yeh, I thought you were" (lying) and he said that he had to turn off here, and stopped for me to jump out. He then did a U turn, and went back the same way we had come from. I've since had a few advances, much more subtle and friendly than that, and never felt scared like I was by that guy.

Same here.Very similar  scenario  and worse.USA was the pits for that."I have a gun,so no trouble" etc...but not just there.

It is the  men who pick up rather than the hitch hikers who are scary .

A long time ago....

 

Our paranoia probably makes it worse  but it is a real thing.

[iNow]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

So you're saying it is perfectly acceptable to be disgusted by the practice of sodomy, which causes excessive bleeding, and was a major contributor to the AIDS epidemic ?

Are you saying that heterosexual individuals are incapable of having butt sex?

Because if not, your suggestion is moot. The disgust should surround the lack of adequate protection, not the fact that a penis sometimes enters an anus (which as I said is hardly limited to homosexuals). 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The disgust should surround the lack of adequate protection, not the fact that a penis sometimes enters an anus (which as I said is hardly limited to homosexuals). 

And I've never said I was disgusted by homosexuals.
But I could be disgusted by sodomy, the act, no matter who does it.
Or some people may be disgusted by other forms of sex with a same sex partner.

Why are you conflating disgust, or hatred, of homosexual people, with disgust of homosexual acts ?
If a homosexual man is disgusted by the thought of vaginal sex with a woman, would you consider him  a heterophobe ???
 

Edited February 5, 2023 by MigL

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

I've never said I was disgusted by homosexuals.
But I could be disgusted by sodomy, the act, no matter who does it.
Or some people may be disgusted by other forms of sex with a same sex partner.

Okay, but unless you’re suggesting those feelings of disgust are inborn and not learned I’m unclear the relevance to this discussion. 

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why are you conflating disgust, or hatred, of homosexual people, with disgust of homosexual acts ?

Because mostly when it comes to human expressions of intimacy, I don’t stop first to ask whether it’s homo or hetero. I really don’t care. Just don’t. Nobody should, IMO. It’s the ones that DO care that seem to be causing all of the social problems related to this topic.

[Phi for All]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

It could be real danger, though the risk level may be inflated because the child understands risk even worse than adults do. If you are e.g. afraid of heights because you fell out of a tree as a kid and broke your arm, I’d consider that to be natural. 

I think we're using different definitions here. If you learned to fear heights because you fell out of a tree, I don't think of that as innate or natural in the way the OP is using "nature". You learned it, so it's nurture.

[StringJunky]

On 2/4/2023 at 3:26 AM, iNow said:

Disgust over things which spread illness and disease (like spitting, coughing, nose picking, and scrotal scratching) makes good sense in social groups where for centuries even a small cut or stubbed toe could (and rather often did) lead to infection and death.

Disgust over OTHER PEOPLE happening to prefer intimacy with more similarly gendered partners does NOT help prevent the spread of illness and disease.

You are a free man with a free mind and are equally free to feel disgust over any ridiculous damned thing you want, but let’s please drop the charade and stop pretending it serves some higher evolutionary purpose when it’s felt toward non-heterosexuals just for being who they are and loving who they love.

What I find ironic, given the disgust, is that many heterosexual people engage in 'unnatural' sexual practices not unlike LGBTQs. I think they call that 'hypocrisy'.  

The simple solution is to not think about it. There is much I would  not do, but if two or more consenting people wish to do such filthy things, I'm not going to judge.... time for golden shower.....

Edited February 15, 2023 by StringJunky

[Intoscience]

So really we are back to square 1, is a distaste for something nature or nurture, innate or learned.

Reading through all the replies and the data on this thread. I  have come to the conclusion (so far) that well it depends on what it is, and sometimes likely a bit of both. 

I have tried to be honest with myself and ask why do I find the thought of same sex gender sex distasteful? 

Honest answer, I don't know, I can't remember back far enough to an early age where I may not had a specific preference of intimacy. I remember (which was most likely learned) thinking that kissing a boy was distasteful, though as a youngster kissing anyone seemed distasteful (in public) but I do remember playing kiss chase with the girls. 

The truth is I find same gender sex distasteful and something I would not personally engage in. However I have no opinion on what others may want/do engage in. This is their prerogative and provided I'm not expected to engage in or favour something I find distasteful I have no problem with it, and would treat everyone equally with the same respect accordingly. 

So does my distaste for same sex gender sex make me an homophobic? 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Intoscience

[geordief]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So does my distaste for same sex gender sex make me an homophobic?

We would have to ask a similar question of  "heterophobia"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heterophobia

I don't think (m)any would claim that such behaviour had a "nature" component.

It is all very murky .. maybe just a "self uber alles" part of human nature?

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The truth is I find same gender sex distasteful and something I would not personally engage in.

Your truth is a bit weird, though, in context of the rest of our lives, don't you think? If you aren't participating in something, why do you find others enjoyment of it "distasteful", unless you believe they're doing something WRONG? Do you feel that way about anything else people do? If you hate eating fish, do you put down those who enjoy it? Are they doing something "distasteful"? What about people who dress up in cosplay? I've known people who think LARPers and Renaissance Festival fans are weird, and that there's something wrong with them mentally because they're so into fantasy and dressing differently.

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I have tried to be honest with myself and ask why do I find the thought of same sex gender sex distasteful? 

+1 for this. That's not often an easy thing to do... to look inward in an attempt to understand why we think or feel what we do.

I'm not a fan of simplistic, monolithic, one-dimensional labels and caricatures like "homophobe," or even "liberal" and "conservative" or "democrat" or "republican" etc., BUT... If we continue being honest with ourselves here on THIS topic... 

Well... then yeah. There is at least a modicum of homophobia in caring at all who other people prefer to love and engage with in intimate acts. 

You're already farther along than most IMO, though, with the fact that you're trying to understand and likely minimize those feelings which are sadly today still rather common. I wish MORE people would have the courage to consider these thoughts and feelings like you are, so good on ya!

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Your truth is a bit weird, though, in context of the rest of our lives, don't you think? If you aren't participating in something, why do you find others enjoyment of it "distasteful", unless you believe they're doing something WRONG?

Doesn't seem weird to me.  I find people chewing gum distasteful.  I don't think it's wrong or that they shouldn't enjoy.  That something may not appeal to my own aesthetics is not a judgment on its moral legitimacy.  I think that's where many straight males are, re gay sex.  You can find some activity distasteful (golden showers, anyone?) without minding in the least that others enjoy it.  

 

[Phi for All]

47 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Doesn't seem weird to me.  I find people chewing gum distasteful.  I don't think it's wrong or that they shouldn't enjoy.

That's not a great example, imo. People who smoke or chew gum/tobacco are often leaving the residue of their enjoyment for the rest of us to deal with. There's a reasonable stance against certain behavior if it actually impacts you negatively.

But I understand where you're coming from wrt gum. I'm prejudiced against people who smoke, and I'm not well disposed towards someone who wants to talk to me while chewing gum. 

"Distasteful" is probably the wrong word to describe how we feel about someone else's sexual preferences. We need a definition for things we don't like people doing that has no impact on us (like their sexual preferences or the clothes they wear or their religious beliefs), and a different definition for behavior that does (like spitting gum on the ground or blowing smoke in someone's face or cutting in front of others in a line). 

And if a "distaste" for homosexuals extends to public affection when one doesn't object to heterosexuals doing the same, then I'd say that's homophobic. And that's what I see most; heterosexuals claiming that homosexuals are grooming small children or offending straight people just by being in the same mall or public area. It's the very existence of an alternate lifestyle they find "distasteful".

[TheVat]

 

 

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And if a "distaste" for homosexuals extends to public affection when one doesn't object to heterosexuals doing the same, then I'd say that's homophobic. And that's what I see most; heterosexuals claiming that homosexuals are grooming small children or offending straight people just by being in the same mall or public area. It's the very existence of an alternate lifestyle they find "distasteful".

Well, yes, it's bad behavior that is noticed.  And this points to a real demarcation between homophobia and aesthetic aversion.  To silently harbor distaste (because you know it's just your own squeamish quirk or whatever) is what tolerant people do.  To express it is to move towards intolerance and inviting others to join in with condemnation (or passive-aggressive variants).  

Unfortunately a lot of people's morality is little more than an aesthetic leaning (derived from a jumble of childhood impressions) which then someone with an intolerant agenda plays upon and steers towards harsh judgement.  

In my own aesthetics, I am an equal-opportunity eye-averter.  I'm just as averse to see some dude clutching his GF's boobs in the Quad as I am to two dudes tongue kissing.  Neither seems wrong to me, I just prefer humans pursue foreplay in rooms or shrubbery.  I cannot imagine turning this preference into an ideology or a doctrine.  In the words of Groucho Marx:  Let joy be unconfined. Let there be dancing in the streets, drinking in the saloons and necking in the parlor.