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 10-04-2023, 02:52 PM
 
Location: In the bee-loud glade
5,573 posts, read 3,347,498 times
Reputation: 12295

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
While that's true, I think that the negative reactions go considerably further back than that. If anything, since I was a child of the 80s, a teen in the 90s, etc. I feel like the fact that a lot of people were dying and advocacy groups were working very hard to try and get them awareness and funding and care...that may have done a lot towards shifting the conversation about homosexuality.

I mean, we didn't really see big declarations for gay rights back in the 60s during a time when the young adults seemed to really be looking for just about anything to protest about, as far as I'm aware. But then later all those huge names in the music industry put together big events to support and fundraise in the fight against AIDS. The shift from "those weirdos are just an odd joke on Three's Company" to "gay people are people, who want to live and have families and deserve basic respect like anybody" happened in my living memory.

Prior to the 80s/90s it was probably a heck of a lot more common to hear any straight man around when homosexuality was mentioned, start talking about how "if another guy flirts with me, I'm gonna beat him up." My Grandfather's generation sure was like that. I heard that sort of thing all the time when I was a kid...I'd say it was in the 90s that it began to change to, "I got nothing against 'em, I just don't wanna see it." For some folks, that's the best one can hope for, I guess.
Gay people were a late and not consistent addition to the concerns people on the left had for groups whose rights were being trampled. The Stonewall Inn riots were in 1969, and the people involved weren't all gay, but after that summer there weren't a lot of what we'd call allies today being vocal about gay rights. I think AIDS forced people in the west to face their prejudice or to double down on it.

On your second quote, when I was in HS we rotated through sports in gym class. By November as it got cold we were doing indoor sports and wrestling was on the schedule the 2 weeks before Thanksgiving. The teacher paired us up by weight as you do in wrestling and as luck would have it I was set to wrestle a kid who was pretty out. I was mortified at the prospect and thought the only thing I could do was skip school or show up and win quickly when we wrestled.

The match ups were listed and I was right in the middle of the weights so I was going to wrestle on the 3rd or 4th day. Not knowing which day made skipping tougher to do so I just planned on winning fast.

I was teased a lot the classes leading up to when I'd wrestle. It was all focused on the other kid and how I'd have to fend him off. I was handling it OK mostly by firing back with slurs of my own until one kid said something implying that I was gay (called me QB). I fought the kid right in the hallway before gym class.

The gym teacher broke us up and we both needed some repairs so after seeing the nurse we went to our next classes. At the end of the day that teacher found me and we talked. He told me the principal knew but that I wouldn't be suspended because the principal wanted the whole issue to go away. He then apologized for putting me in the spot I was in. He said that he knew as soon as he announced the wrestling rotation that someone would end up paired with X. He said he didn't know until today how much grief I was getting. He'd talked to a couple of other kids and they told him it had gone on for a few days.

But then he told me that while he was sorry, he felt like he had to have X wrestle. He said he thought it would be bad to invent some reason why X shouldn't wrestle, that it would make his already difficult life at the school more difficult. Then he told me my mouth was too messed up to wrestle, so I was off the hook. I wore braces so I got cut a bit in the fight but I said that I was OK and he very firmly said that no, I wasn't able to wrestle. I understood.

Then he said you know, X has a pretty tough time here. The past week or so you've gotten a slight taste of what he deals with all the time. You fought one guy and you step back into the mainstream here like nothing happened. X isn't going to fight anybody, and even if he did he'd have to fight half the school.

And I kid you not we were reading Lord of the Flies in English class at the time. Right there in our polished tile jungle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2023, 03:32 PM
 
736 posts, read 484,858 times
Reputation: 1163
The stigma attached to male homosexuality leads to a lot of violence
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2023, 04:17 PM
 
Location: SF/Mill Valley
8,662 posts, read 3,866,412 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by SerlingHitchcockJPeele View Post
Homosexuality is very pervasive in those who have been incarcerated, about 1 in every 3 black men and about 1 in every 6 Latinos will do time at some point in their lives. Many of them have either been “turned out” or have a “prison wife” before getting out and going back to their girlfriend/wife/baby-mama.
Prison is about survival and rape/power; sexual orientation is irrelevant to such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2023, 10:46 PM
 
Location: King County, WA
15,828 posts, read 6,536,770 times
Reputation: 13325
I find media scenes of homosexual intimacy unappealing, whether it's women or men. Usually I just wait for it to pass. But that's about it: I've just accepted it as part of nature, and that it probably has some survival value.

Same-gender sexual behavior found to be widespread across mammal species and to have multiple origins
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2023, 07:52 AM
 
Location: SF/Mill Valley
8,662 posts, read 3,866,412 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by H8t3rs View Post
Though I turn the channel when I see any gay scenes. Two men kissing does not work for me, and I don't need to see two women kiss either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
I find media scenes of homosexual intimacy unappealing, whether it's women or men.
Unless the two of you are watching gay porn, why would you mention (a lack of) appeal or state it ‘does not work’ (for you)? There’s a huge difference between being personally turned-off by same-gender sex vs. the inability to accept homosexuality exists, particularly to the point you can’t (even) watch a gay couple in a (drama/comedy) TV show or movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
Usually I just wait for it to pass. But that's about it: I've just accepted it as part of nature, and that it probably has some survival value.
Point being, we don’t know definitively what, if any, that (survival) value is; it’s an evolutionary paradox as it does not contribute to an animal’s survival or reproductive ‘fitness’. That, however, shouldn’t matter in terms of the thread; we can be turned-off by homosexuality or have an inability to relate but simultaneously accept it and respect others’ rights relative to such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2023, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
20,382 posts, read 14,656,708 times
Reputation: 39467
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
Unless the two of you are watching gay porn, why would you mention (a lack of) appeal or state it ‘does not work’ (for you)? There’s a huge difference between being personally turned-off by same-gender sex vs. the inability to accept homosexuality exists, particularly to the point you can’t (even) watch a gay couple in a (drama/comedy) TV show or movie.



Point being, we don’t know definitively what, if any, that (survival) value is; it’s an evolutionary paradox as it does not contribute to an animal’s survival or reproductive ‘fitness’. That, however, shouldn’t matter in terms of the thread; we can be turned-off by homosexuality or have an inability to relate but simultaneously accept it and respect others’ rights relative to such.
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me. And the penguins, many primates and other social species bear this out.

There's something of a spectrum when it comes to reproductive strategy. On one end you've got creatures like insects, most fish and sea critters, rabbits... Things that generally get eaten, have a high mortality rate. Their strategy is numbers, numbers, numbers. Quantity over quality of nurture and care. I would say that those who only see "survival value" in "make more babies!" are likening us to bugs or rabbits and I think that's a bit silly.

Then on the other, you've got a lot of mammal species, especially predators and large mammals and intelligent/social mammals. They reproduce less but put a lot of time and energy into protecting and nurturing the young. Quality over quantity. Human beings are the latter, given how much of an investment goes into creating and raising a human child.

So with that in mind, the most prevalent theory on evolutionary advantage is to have more adults around who can provide resources to benefit the young (and with our particular longevity now, the elderly as well.) Of course, something as basic as evolution does not take into account birth control and personal choices, IVF and the myriad of tweaks humanity makes to this stuff, but you have the basic forces of "more reproduction" versus "less reproduction" with the inverse relationship of resources available per child. Resources made available through the labor of adults.

And with even with the complexities of human activity -
A gay couple, even if they provide direct care to no one, is generally part of that labor force...they might adopt kids, or not...but they are generating economic activity and cashflow through a system that is also involved in care. Paying taxes, in the US, for instance, when the couple with children is getting tax breaks and credits for the cost of childcare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2023, 11:54 AM
 
4,027 posts, read 3,306,051 times
Reputation: 6384
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundestroyer View Post
This is purely anecdotal but I've been thinking about how it may be true. Talking to men/women I know in real life and reading peoples responses on sexuality, it seems that when straight people of gender are asked about fantasies with the same gender, men express disgust and women seem to be mostly neutral about it.

Is there an evolutionary reason for this or is it just indoctrination? Is the masculinity of men seen as more fragile and thus they instinctively feel disgust.
There might be a biological reason.

During WW2, in Czechoslovakia you were excused from the military if you were gay, but the government was looking for a way to identify draft dodgers pretending to be gay. Kurt Freund, a Czech Canadian researcher created an early version of a plethysmograph, which measures blood flow to the penis. He showed pictures of sexually aroused men and women to a group of gay men and straight men and the results were what you expected, straight men were only aroused looking at the women and gay men were aroused only looking at the men.

In the early 2000's, Meredith Chivers another Canadian researcher decided to replicate the test but with women. She showed a group of gay, straight and bisexual women pictures of sexually aroused men and women as well as a picture of sexually aroused bonobo as a control. The results were not what you would expect, all the women showed physiological arousal to all of the pictures including the bonobos.

Sexual arousal works different in men and women. In men, there is a concordance between a man's mental appraisal of his arousal and his bodies physiological response, that is not true for women. In women, a woman's mental appraisal of her arousal doesn't match how her body responds to sexual stimulus. These are two separate distinct processes in women.

Meredith Chivers argues the reason women's bodies work differently is that this is is an anti rape defense. If women bodies didn't experience physiological arousal, there were be more damage done to their reproductive system during rape and that could prevent them from having kids in future sexual encounters.

Lisa Diamond, a researcher at the University of Utah, who did most of the research on sexual fluidity has argued that the reason both sexual fluidity and bisexuality are more prevalent in women than men is this mechanism that Chiver's discovered. If you are already physiologically aroused to both genders it's a lot easier to become mentally aroused by both genders too so it's easier to switch back and forth and be bisexual or sexually fluid.

Now my own suspicion is this same mechanism also impacts sexual disgust As a straight man because my body isn't aroused looking at sexually aroused men, it's probably easier for me to experience sexual disgust at gay men. With straight women because their body is physiologically aroused looking at aroused women already that probably dampens sexual disgust at lesbians. Between that and higher levels of agreeableness women probably experience less sexual disgust overall.

Now one other thing to think about is that sexual disgust can be dampened fairly easy. As recently as the 1970's sexual disgust at lesbians was pretty similar to sexual disgust at gay men with lesbians being ridiculed as bull dykes, but as straight men were repeated exposed to lesbian imagery in porn that went away. Today there really seems to be very little stigma associated with being a lesbian.

There was also research on both why Obama could get elected as president, but Jessie Jackson couldn't back in the 90s as well as why attitudes toward gay marriage changed so rapidly. In both cases, the underlying issue was likability. Basically because Oprah was really likable, that really transformed attitudes towards black people and because Ellen DeGeneres was also really likable that too transformed attitudes toward homosexuality.

Likability really influences disgust. If you really dislike Donald Trump or Kamala Harris that really drives disgust towards them as well.

But likability can really dampen it too. Here Darryl Davis on getting 200 klansmen to give him their robes.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/54486...up-their-robes

Last edited by shelato; 10-05-2023 at 12:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2023, 01:41 PM
 
Location: SF/Mill Valley
8,662 posts, read 3,866,412 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
I just wait for it to pass. But that's about it: I've just accepted it as part of nature, and that it probably has some survival value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
Point being, we don’t know definitively what, if any, that (survival) value is; it’s an evolutionary paradox as it does not contribute to an animal’s survival or reproductive ‘fitness’. That, however, shouldn’t matter in terms of the thread; we can be turned-off by homosexuality or have an inability to relate but simultaneously accept it and respect others’ rights relative to such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
Really? It seems pretty obvious to me. And the penguins, many primates and other social species bear this out.
If ‘survival value’ relative to homosexuality is obvious to you, you should replace the many evolutionary biologists who have long sought to uncover the adaptive origins of homosexual behavior in order to resolve the Darwinian paradox. My point is that it’s a conundrum that need not be resolved in order to accept homosexuality exists and that it is one’s own psychological issue if they are repulsed by it, as a whole.

That said, why be angered (as some appear to be) by those who are personally turned-off by same-gender sex and/or are secure in our heterosexuality. It is one of the things that surprises me in this forum, particularly relative to psychology; it’s as if folks want to control (or even care about) what others think in terms of their sexual orientation, masculinity, femininity and whatnot. What matters is how the individual feels about it; do they accept themselves (and others).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2023, 01:49 PM
 
Location: King County, WA
15,828 posts, read 6,536,770 times
Reputation: 13325
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
Unless the two of you are watching gay porn, why would you mention (a lack of) appeal or state it ‘does not work’ (for you)? There’s a huge difference between being personally turned-off by same-gender sex vs. the inability to accept homosexuality exists, particularly to the point you can’t (even) watch a gay couple in a (drama/comedy) TV show or movie.
It doesn't have to be gay porn. An example is the gay sex scene in American Gods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2023, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
20,382 posts, read 14,656,708 times
Reputation: 39467
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
If ‘survival value’ relative to homosexuality is obvious to you, you should replace the many evolutionary biologists who have long sought to uncover the adaptive origins of homosexual behavior in order to resolve the Darwinian paradox. My point is that it’s a conundrum that need not be resolved in order to accept homosexuality exists and that it is one’s own psychological issue if they are repulsed by it, as a whole.

That said, why be angered (as some appear to be) by those who are personally turned-off by same-gender sex and/or are secure in our heterosexuality. It is one of the things that surprises me in this forum, particularly relative to psychology; it’s as if folks want to control (or even care about) what others think in terms of their sexual orientation, masculinity, femininity and whatnot. What matters is how the individual feels about it; do they accept themselves (and others).
Oh, what I describe HAS been put out there by many evolutionary biologists. I didn't come up with it.

It's known as the "benevolent uncle theory."

That this may have evolved to provide additional providers and protectors for the offspring of related adults, therefore even though you are not passing on your own DNA directly by procreating, you're protecting DNA you have in common with your siblings' kids (as an example.)

If you Google the above term you'll come up with plenty of sources. This is not some totally unexplainable mystery. Though I agree, it doesn't NEED an explanation.

I have no idea why anyone is angry about anyone being turned off about anything or anyone, nor why anyone would have a problem with anyone else's expression of masculinity, femininity or anything else.

But I would argue that someone who will come along and declare that bisexuals don't really exist, is more involved in trying to control or not accept the sexuality and identity of other people, than not. I have no idea what's up with that, either.
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