Experiment on homophobia and denial

[Alonzo]

cy-7AoxFEJA

This is from an HBO special called "middle sexes". It's narrated by Gore Vidal.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Nice find. Thanks!

[AlanC]

Well this was interesting, but it is also a bit decieving.

The one statement made in regard to the studies that I noticed was this.."A significant number of .." the "homophobic" subjects showed a sexual response to the video.

Two problems I have with this is, they never stated what exactly that "significant" number was. Was it 10 %, 50% or higher? Or was it less?

No matter, because as the narration went on, they seemed to attempt to then paint all members of that group as being somehow in denial of their own feelings. This is a bit disengenuous, is it not?

And of course, there is little to no information as to just how someone was placed into one group of the other. Only that it was based "on answers" to a questionaire.

I think it is wholly rational that anyone who is violently and irrationally affected by the idea of homosexuality is only doing so because they are personally threatened. I'm not sure why it would take a study to reach that conclusion.

But to be of any real significance, the information that was missing would have been nice to have. I usually lose interest quickly in drawing conclusions from any kind of study when someone else thinks the word "significant" should be taken at face value with no actual definition as to why it was deemed so.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Well this was interesting, but it is also a bit decieving.

The one statement made in regard to the studies that I noticed was this.."A significant number of .." the "homophobic" subjects showed a sexual response to the video.

Two problems I have with this is, they never stated what exactly that "significant" number was. Was it 10 %, 50% or higher? Or was it less?

No matter, because as the narration went on, they seemed to attempt to then paint all members of that group as being somehow in denial of their own feelings. This is a bit disengenuous, is it not?

And of course, there is little to no information as to just how someone was placed into one group of the other. Only that it was based "on answers" to a questionaire.

I think it is wholly rational that anyone who is violently and irrationally affected by the idea of homosexuality is only doing so because they are personally threatened. I'm not sure why it would take a study to reach that conclusion.

But to be of any real significance, the information that was missing would have been nice to have. I usually lose interest quickly in drawing conclusions from any kind of study when someone else thinks the word "significant" should be taken at face value with no actual definition as to why it was deemed so.

The TV show isn't the study...
I'm sure you can find the study out there and read all of the data for yourself.

[Alonzo]

Here's the entire study. It was originally published in the "Journal of Abnormal Pscyhology"

http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

[AlanC]

The TV show isn't the study...
I'm sure you can find the study out there and read all of the data for yourself.

Well, DUH!

The TV show however, did attempt to report on the findings of the study. I just didn't think they did a particularly good job of it for the reasons stated.

[AlanC]

Here's the entire study. It was originally published in the "Journal of Abnormal Pscyhology"

http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

Thanks Zo.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Well, DUH!

The TV show however, did attempt to report on the findings of the study. I just didn't think they did a particularly good job of it for the reasons stated.

Since you started out with, "Well this was interesting, but it is also a bit decieving", it prompted my response. The show wasn't, in fact, decieving...it just didn't go into the detail that you would have liked (and it's expected that a show like that wouldn't go into all of the details of the study).

That's why I objected to your reasons stated.

[Deadshot]

If we're talking about sex, not love, well isn't any hook up possible and acceptable to some?

I'm sure I find porn on the net involving animals. I know there is porn on the net with "Sybian" machines, masterabatory devices for women. I also know of guys that have been overseas and been involved in "Tranny Suprises."

So, theorhetorically, a animal - machine - or person of the same sex could get me off. See another person in extasy, could also get me excited. My guess is you could interview people who have had male/male/female threesome with no homosexual activity and those men would admit seeing the other got getting off helped get them going.

I'm saying all this because the film focuses on the wrong thing. It's about love, not about the people involved but the emotion felt. I really do not care what turns you on. I am not a pedophile, but I like it when my wife puts on the Cheerleader outfit and makes pigtales out of her hair. Having something get you aroused is one thing. Feeling love in your heart is another.

Don't believe me. Go into the prison population, ESPECIALLY, if you're a male and see if you do not see some homosexual acts by "straight" men. Also examine "love" in prisons.

Homophobia is about hate. Not about getting off or love, hence the problem with it.

[PostmodernProphet]

Here's the entire study. It was originally published in the "Journal of Abnormal Pscyhology"

http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

at least the location was accurate.....

I find it interesting that the study used a distinctly different definition of homophobia than that which has been tossed about on this board....in fact, they criticize a definition which includes "any negative attitude, belief, or action toward homosexuality"....this study only considers persons having a measurable PHYSICAL response to homosexuality to be "homophobia"......and concludes a parallel between the negative and positive physical responses.......(see page 1 of link above)

[AlanC]

Since you started out with, "Well this was interesting, but it is also a bit decieving", it prompted my response. The show wasn't, in fact, decieving...it just didn't go into the detail that you would have liked (and it's expected that a show like that wouldn't go into all of the details of the study).

That's why I objected to your reasons stated.

The video made the statement that a significant number of the identified homophopes had a sexual response to the male homo erotic video.

Then, they drew this conclusion.. "Those outraged by sexual diversity are often fighting something within themselves.."

This is a decieving statement. It is constructed to imply that ALL those it identifies as being "outraged" are, in fact fighting something within themselves, some more than others.

That is not an accurate statement according to the show and according to the study.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

The video made the statement that a significant number of the identified homophopes had a sexual response to the male homo erotic video.

Then, they drew this conclusion.. "Those outraged by sexual diversity are often fighting something within themselves.."

This is a decieving statement. It is constructed to imply that ALL those it identifies as being "outraged" are, in fact fighting something within themselves, some more than others.

That is not an accurate statement according to the show and according to the study.

That's a completely different argument from what you posted before.

But, I still don't get where something that "often" happens implies that it happens for "all"...

[AlanC]

That's a completely different argument from what you posted before.

But, I still don't get where something that "often" happens implies that it happens for "all"...

Its exactly the same argument I made before.

from my first post.

No matter, because as the narration went on, they seemed to attempt to then paint all members of that group as being somehow in denial of their own feelings. This is a bit disengenuous, is it not?


To be accurate they should have said, "SOME of those outraged .....are often fighting something within themselves."


Semantics? Probably. But then it was never meant to be an objective show so there is little point in debating why they would have written it the way they did.

[Drocket]

The statement already contains a qualifier - often. Adding a second qualifier is unnecessary. Perhaps you'd be happier if the statement was "Sometimes, occasionally, some of those outraged are sometimes often at times periodically fighting something within themselves"?

[cronic]

Interesting way of wasting money,
also,
I'm not sure this experiment proves a whole lot,
because my guess is you could choose another 64 men and get completely different results, as everyones individual sex drives differ from one anothers.

Who is to say these guys pulling there dicks out and putting the wire gadget on there weaners, and the thought itself of being tested for hard on range, wasn't getting aroused just from that alone?

Sometimes I get aroused for no god damn reason what-so-ever.. and I may purposely think of an ugly chick or say I thought of a dude, or someone close to me that has died. .. all to try and get rid of it...
( because this shouldn't be happening here at the restaurant or in church..lol )

The fact that it still doesn't go away or maybe it would even increase... by no means, says I got aroused more or couldn't get rid of it because of the images in my head.. but maybe its just cause I have a stronger sex drive?

I can't speak for most men but in my case sometimes it just pops up and wants to address the world.. no matter where I am, or what I'm doing.


I am not a pedophile, but I like it when my wife puts on the Cheerleader outfit and makes pigtales out of her hair.

I agree Deadshot.. I'm the same way,
also, could you provide us with some pictures to back up your claims?..

hmmmm, I didnt think so.. sigh..lol

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

Its exactly the same argument I made before.

from my first post.

Ah...I guess I didn't read into it closely enough. I apologize.

To be accurate they should have said, "SOME of those outraged .....are often fighting something within themselves."


Semantics? Probably. But then it was never meant to be an objective show so there is little point in debating why they would have written it the way they did.

Nah, I don't think the "often" implies "all". It's also further backed up by how they described the study. They didn't say that ALL homophobes gave an erotic reaction to the homosexual porn....and, IMO, they didn't imply that ALL homophobes are fighting something within themselves. I thought it was pretty clear...

[AlanC]

The statement already contains a qualifier - often. Adding a second qualifier is unnecessary. Perhaps you'd be happier if the statement was "Sometimes, occasionally, some of those outraged are sometimes often at times periodically fighting something within themselves"?


So if I had a study that said half of blue eyed men had little or no hunger pangs associated with seeing a sizzling steak, you would find the following statement to be accurate?

Blue eyed men often have intense hunger pangs when seeing a sizzling steak.

[AlanC]

Nah, I don't think the "often" implies "all". It's also further backed up by how they described the study. They didn't say that ALL homophobes gave an erotic reaction to the homosexual porn....and, IMO, they didn't imply that ALL homophobes are fighting something within themselves. I thought it was pretty clear...


You are correct, the word often does not imply all.

The named group being "Those outraged..." implied all of those who were designated as being so outraged.

The construct of the sentence is that Those outraged (all of them) are often feeling something or fighting something. So the qualifier would apply to each one of the group.

[Drocket]

So if I had a study that said half of blue eyed men had little or no hunger pangs associated with seeing a sizzling steak, you would find the following statement to be accurate?

Blue eyed men often have intense hunger pangs when seeing a sizzling steak.

No, because you reversed the statement. Your original study showed that they didn't have hunger pains, not that those who did have hunger pains had ones that were intense. More to the issue, though, half doesn't qualify as 'often'. Often requires >50%. So if we reduce the incident of no hunger pains to, say, 40%, and remove the 'intense', then the statement is correct.

[Alonzo]

So if I had a study that said half of blue eyed men had little

The video said a significant percentage for one, while overwhelming majority for the other. 50/50 isn't the same as that.

[AlanC]

No, because you reversed the statement. Your original study showed that they didn't have hunger pains, not that those who did have hunger pains had ones that were intense. More to the issue, though, half doesn't qualify as 'often'. Often requires >50%. So if we reduce the incident of no hunger pains to, say, 40%, and remove the 'intense', then the statement is correct.

Again, often as a qualifier is applied to the whole group as its mentioned.

In this example, if you are going to use often to indicate a rate of occurance greater than 50%, it would imply that all blue eyed men experience the hunger pangs more than 50% of the time.

If the subject of the sentence is the whole group, the qualifier applies to the whole group.

Secondly, often merely refers to a frequency of action. There is no implicit application of a percentage to the word often. For example, if 40% of your posts were moved to FP, wouldn't you think that your posts were often being moved even if it is less than 50%?

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

You are correct, the word often does not imply all.

The named group being "Those outraged..." implied all of those who were designated as being so outraged.

The construct of the sentence is that Those outraged (all of them) are often feeling something or fighting something. So the qualifier would apply to each one of the group.

Everybody loves somebody. How do you read that?

Is it, everyone loves a particular person? Or, is it, everyone has a specific person (not necessarily the same person) that they love.

I can see how you can read into it that way. The language may be ambiguous, but I have no reason to believe that it was intentionally deceiving. Again, with the context of the study, that they did correctly portray other than this ambiguity, I think they meant it as I understood it and others have understood it.

[AlanC]

Everybody loves somebody. How do you read that?

Is it, everyone loves a particular person? Or, is it, everyone has a specific person (not necessarily the same person) that they love.

I can see how you can read into it that way. The language may be ambiguous, but I have no reason to believe that it was intentionally deceiving. Again, with the context of the study, that they did correctly portray other than this ambiguity, I think they meant it as I understood it and others have understood it.

So instead of what they said, you understood what they meant? Excellent then. Maybe we should nominate you for the Karnack award. :worship:

I too have already agreed to what they should have said. My criticism is in how they tried to say it. Was it intentional? I don't know either really, but I suspect it was on some level.

[Mouth Full Of Teeth]

So instead of what they said, you understood what they meant? Excellent then. Maybe we should nominate you for the Karnack award. :worship:

Again, it was ambiguous. You haven't proven that your reading of it is correct (and certainly not intended). You have just shown that you can read it that way. Just as with my "Everybody loves somebody" quote, you can read an ambiguous statement in more than one way.

As for what I understood them to mean, yes, I do believe I have the correct interpretation from the context of what they laid out from the study...

I too have already agreed to what they should have said. My criticism is in how they tried to say it. Was it intentional? I don't know either really, but I suspect it was on some level.

And I don't hold much for your suspicions. It is my suspicion that you were looking for something to disagree with.