Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-02-2020, 12:05 PM
 
28,675 posts, read 18,795,274 times
Reputation: 30984

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
Clearly there is bias among your homosexual friends who would tell you such a thing.
Well, I've already presumed they're biased toward homosexuality.


Quote:
Pyschologically healthy people accept others for who they are (no matter their sexual orientation).

That's a personal opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2020, 12:42 PM
 
Location: SF/Mill Valley
8,669 posts, read 3,871,862 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Well, I've already presumed they're biased toward homosexuality.
Actually, the inference is they are biased against heterosexual men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2020, 12:58 PM
 
28,675 posts, read 18,795,274 times
Reputation: 30984
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
Actually, the inference is they are biased against heterosexual men.

That's a personal opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2020, 03:21 PM
 
Location: SF/Mill Valley
8,669 posts, read 3,871,862 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
That's a personal opinion.
The correct usage of 'biased toward' or 'biased against' is not an opinion. That said, your bias is clear as well; and yes, that, too, is my opinion. ; )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2020, 07:26 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth, TX
197 posts, read 229,411 times
Reputation: 405
I'm a heterosexual guy and I don't see homosexual activity as anything repulsive regardless of who does it. When I was in high school (and younger) I might have thought differently, especially given that my peers freely tossed around homophobic slurs. I also think that a lot of guys who are repulsed by homosexuality also try to get into other people's private business and make it an issue. Someone's sexuality is their private business and it should be respected as such, and if someone chooses not to share that information, no one should be pressuring them to disclose nor spread rumors that they are gay, no matter how much they suspect them of being gay (or bi).

I had a lot of friends in the LGBTQ+ community in college (which definitely changed my mindset relative to high school), and also grew up more around women, so those might also be factors here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2020, 08:09 PM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,655 posts, read 28,691,193 times
Reputation: 50536
I don't know. I've read a lot of opinions on here and many of them could be true in certain cases.

As a straight woman, I am not bothered by knowing that people are gay but I think the thought of two men doing romantic, sexual things together is more sickening than than the thought to two women doing it. I'm not saying "revolting" or "disgusting" or "repulsive" but it does make my stomach turn a little bit. It's commonplace to see two women hugging so it's not much of a stretch of the imagination to think a few steps further.

Maybe for men, they are brought up to feel that it's important to be strong and masculine whereas with women, we are just brought up to be whatever we are. There isn't that pressure on a woman to feel feminine, not much anyway. So maybe men see it as a sign of weakness, a man who isn't manly, something they have been taught to never be.

There's no rhyme or reason to any of this, it's just how we feel inside. I think people are born one way or the other or somewhere along the continuum. Probably things that happen to them as they are growing up influence them too, but if they are born strongly one way, there's no way to change it even if they wanted to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2020, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Central IL
20,722 posts, read 16,377,752 times
Reputation: 50380
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
I don't know. I've read a lot of opinions on here and many of them could be true in certain cases.

As a straight woman, I am not bothered by knowing that people are gay but I think the thought of two men doing romantic, sexual things together is more sickening than than the thought to two women doing it. I'm not saying "revolting" or "disgusting" or "repulsive" but it does make my stomach turn a little bit. It's commonplace to see two women hugging so it's not much of a stretch of the imagination to think a few steps further.

Maybe for men, they are brought up to feel that it's important to be strong and masculine whereas with women, we are just brought up to be whatever we are. There isn't that pressure on a woman to feel feminine, not much anyway. So maybe men see it as a sign of weakness, a man who isn't manly, something they have been taught to never be.

There's no rhyme or reason to any of this, it's just how we feel inside. I think people are born one way or the other or somewhere along the continuum. Probably things that happen to them as they are growing up influence them too, but if they are born strongly one way, there's no way to change it even if they wanted to.
Are you sure that we're not fooling ourselves when we substitute "sickening" for revolting? - they seem very similar. But hey, if it's how you feel then you can't change that...just any resulting actions/behavior from that sickening feeling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2020, 11:36 AM
 
21,939 posts, read 9,508,101 times
Reputation: 19464
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
I'm gay and a I've also wondered if there's an evolutionary reason for the disgust/distaste of gay men by some straight men. I think it's a combination of several factors that are hard to tease out. There isn't enough research being done on this topic. Far left liberals don't like the idea of homosexuality having a biological component (and they control the purse strings on this type of research) because it would ruin the current fashionable idea that gender roles and behavior are all purely based on socialization. Religious conservatives don't like studying it because admitting homosexuality has a biological component means there's a legitimate basis for same sex marriage.
I think your post is pretty good but I think you are wrong about this. Religious conservatives don't like it because it is forbidden in the Bible. Although I am not a religious conservative, I HAVE taken Bible literature. I think it's also presumptuous of you to assume you know why they don't like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
20,396 posts, read 14,667,898 times
Reputation: 39492
I think that there are a variety of factors that can be a cause for a person to be gay, not one single reason. I'm also saddened by the fact that it's difficult to discuss the subject at all, even if one is trying to be curious, open-minded, objective and just interested, for one essential reason... In the asking of "why" there is a lurking shade of "how can we prevent or fix it?" Like, if science pinned down biological or genetic causes, could medicine prevent gay people from existing? If it's more a matter of life experiences, psychology, "nurture"...could it be trained, programmed, prayed or counseled out? That bothers me a lot, because I know a lot of gay people and I love them as they are. There isn't anything broken there that needs a fix.

I do wish that the few individuals one encounters who are tormented by thoughts and desires they don't want, could find peace and freedom from that pain. We had a fellow over in the Relationships subforum not so long ago who really seemed to be struggling with unwanted thoughts that intruded on his concept of self as he knows it and wants it to be. That right there, the rare case that falls into that category, is the only smidgen of willingness I've got to contemplate gayness as a thing to be "cured" in any fashion.

It all comes down to some really simple thinking for me. Figure out what makes you happy, harm no one in the pursuit of it, and don't interfere with others doing the same. I think that human beings complicate so many things that could really be just...that...simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginge McFantaPants View Post
I wonder though... maybe it's that women have been socialized to not be "too superficial", and put attractiveness on a lower pedestal. Maybe we are as visually-oriented, but keep it to ourselves more because we are conditioned to.
Is it a question of being visually oriented or not in general, so much as how it engages one's sexual desire mechanisms psychologically? I'd love to do a study one day where I ask a lot of people of many demographics, orientations, genders, and so on, to think of a strong memory where they were sexually aroused when no one was stimulating them by touch. And to describe the sensory input they were getting instead. I love to look at beautiful people, but it does not arouse me sexually. I can't get into porn at all. I'm not disgusted by it, just...bored. It does nothing for me. But auditory input can give me a lot of pleasant sensations and get me going, though. Imagining how something would FEEL, can do the trick.

I feel, as a woman, as though there is a disconnect in the wiring between by eyeballs and my sexual desire, where maybe most men (some women?) have a direct line from one to the other? I don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars View Post
Sometimes psychological phenomena have indirect evolutionary benefits. Here's my theory for why this difference exists.

Women seem to usually lose interest in a man quickly when they find out that he has had homosexual experiences --- this is probably because a gay or bisexual man is seen as more feminine, and therefore weak, and therefore not a good provider for the woman. Straight men usually aren't turned off at all if a woman has had sex with other women.

Anyway, this means straight men have a strong incentive to not "look gay". My theory is that this primal homophobia in a lot of straight men is evolution's way of making sure that they act as straight as possible, through feeling disgust at homosexuality. Now, maybe if a guy is viciously, loudly homophobic, then that's not attractive to women, but the genes that cause slight degrees of homophobia in men are still reproductively advantageous.
There's more to it than that, though there's a kernel of truth in your words. I think that a lot of performative masculinity is something that men do for other men, more than they do for women. I think that part of this is posturing at other men in threat displays, looking at the human animal through its history...men are violent to other men a LOT. So a lot of the time, men do not want to appear VULNERABLE in front of other men, especially in the absence of an intense bond of trust. A man who seems vulnerable is more likely to become a target of violence. Women, on the other hand, can more safely appear vulnerable...our best protection from violence comes not from looking tough and scary, but from the strength of the other people around us. Whether that is our tribe or community or family, or a father, brother, husband, etc. We group-source our own safety. In that way, showing vulnerability can lead others to want to protect us, or rather join in mutually-protective/beneficial social groups or bonds.

(Stuff like this is why evo-bio gets a bit more complicated than most who bring it up, want it to be. There is more to advantageous behavior, than just reproduction, especially among social creatures.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
I have had homosexual men tell me that there is no such thing as a bisexual man...just homosexual men who aren't admitting it yet.

So maybe women know the same thing.
That is an outmoded way of thinking that is not widely accepted among gay people who are part of a community. But just like any other group of human beings, gay people are not a hive mind. There are insufferable a-holes, bigots, racists, just like there are wonderful, genuine, caring people...good and bad, it's all there in pretty much any group of people. Bisexual people often complain about feeling invalidated or erased in both straight and gay circles. But I really do think that much as what's implied in the attempt at inclusivity that is the LGBTQ+ acronym...most communities acknowledge that bisexuality is a thing.

I find it interesting how the old thinking had it that Freddy Mercury was gay, and David Bowie was straight, when in fact BOTH of them were bisexual.

There are a lot of reasons why some straight women are very much put off by men who have been with men, though. Fear that they will stray because they have needs that she can't ever meet. Fear of disease. Questions about whether he truly loves or wants her. What I find interesting, is that a straight man with a bi woman for a partner, often feels very un-threatened by the idea of her seeing another woman on the side, he feels safe that he cannot be replaced. Whereas a straight woman with a bi man for a partner, would maybe have more fears and concerns. I do think that there is a nasty little core of this mentality that holds men to be "people" more so than women, in some way. But I have also met men, especially men from macho cultures (south of the border, generally) who were disgusted by lesbianism and would NOT have been OK with their gf or wife having a female lover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2020, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
16,559 posts, read 10,635,195 times
Reputation: 36574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
I'd love to do a study one day where I ask a lot of people of many demographics, orientations, genders, and so on, to think of a strong memory where they were sexually aroused when no one was stimulating them by touch. And to describe the sensory input they were getting instead.
Ask any teenage male, or anyone who has ever been a teenage male. They can tell you about nocturnal emissions, better known as "wet dreams." Most (all?) teenage boys, at one time or another, will have a sexually vivid dream, and it will cause them to ejaculate while still in their sleep. This will happen even though their hands are keeping to themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top