What is being homophobic? Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT | |
I'd say that homophobia means the prejudice rather than unwanted fear or disgust, at-least the way most people use it. I would hesitate against saying that a feeling of disgust of seeing two members of the same sex as ourselves making out is "natural" though, I'm a straight male and honestly I don't feel disgusted at-all by seeing two men kiss, disgust certainly isn't a universal feeling. | |
I am with you on this except there is one difference, I don't find two guys disgusting I simply don't care. It's just complete and utter indifference even if its in public. | |
The way I look at things in general is broken down like this Is it hurting anybody? If so do something about it, if not proceed to stop caring and wild third option if it interests you pay it attention. | |
I'd say you can find two guys kissing to be uncomfortable without being homophobic. I don't hate homosexual people and one of my good friends is gay but I still find men kissing to be uncomfortable. I just can't really help that. | |
There are many things straight couples engage in that would make me uncomfortable but that doesn't mean I'm prejudiced against straight people. We all have different preferences, as long as we're not stopping anyone doing anything that isn't harmful then whoo hoo. | |
Homophobia=Irrational fear of, aversion towards, discrimination/hatred of homosexuality/homosexuals. Yes, Aaron, you have homophobic tendencies. You can be homophobic and not anti-gay. It is homophobia to be disgusted by same-sex kissing between two guys, hand holding. It is prejudice. Is it bigotry? No. But it's an irrational discomfort. There is nothing actually inherently disgusting about it. | |
Two kinds of disgust: disgust at primary objects and projective disgust Disgust seems like a deep-seated bodily response to certain smells, sights, and feels, which has little to do with what we learn or how we interpret the world. In the past twenty years, however, important experimental work by psychologist Paul Rozin and his colleagues has shown conclusively that disgust has a marked cognitive element. What people find disgusting depends crucially on the idea they have of the object. Thus disgust is not simply sensory distaste. Subjects who sniff the same odor from two vials, being told that one contains feces and the other contains cheese, are usually disgusted by the first but not by the second. Nor is disgust identical with the sense of danger. People will eat formerly poisonous mushrooms if they are convinced that the poison has been removed, but they won't swallow a cockroach even if they are sure it has been sterilized; subjects even refuse to swallow a cockroach sealed in a plastic capsule that will emerge, undigested, in the subject's feces. Disgust, Rozin finds, concerns the borders of the body. Its central idea is that of contamination: the disgusted person feels defiled by the object, thinking that it has somehow entered the self. Further experiments show that behind this idea of personal contamination lies the idea that "you are what you eat": if you take in something base or vile, you become like that yourself. So what are people unwilling to be or become? The so-called primary objects of disgust are reminders of human animality and mortality: feces, other bodily fluids, corpses, and animals or insects who have related properties (slimy, smelly, oozy) . . . . When people experience disgust, then, they are expressing an aversion to prominent aspects of what every human being is. They feel contaminated by what reminds them of these aspects, which people often prefer to conceal. Such aversions almost certainly have an evolutionary basis, but they still have to be confirmed by learning: children do not exhibit disgust until the ages of two or three years old, during the time of toilet training. This means that society has room to interpret and shape the emotion, directing it to some objects rather than others, as happens with anger and compassion. In virtually all societies, disgust is standardly felt toward a group of primary objects: feces, blood, semen, urine, nasal discharges, menstrual discharges, corpses, decaying meat, and animal/insects that are oozy, slimy, or smelly . . . Disgust at primary objects is usually a useful heuristic, steering us away from the dangerous when there is no time for detailed inquiry. Disgust is then extended from object to object in ways that could hardly bear rational scrutiny. This sort of extended disgust is what I call projective disgust . . . . Projective disgust is shaped by social norms, as societies teach their members to identify alleged contaminants in their midst. All societies, it appears, identify as least some humans as disgusting. Very likely this is a stratagem adopted to cordon off the dominant group more securely from its own feared animality: if those quasi humans stand between me and the world of disgusting animality, then I am that much further from being mortal/decaying/smelly/oozy myself. Projective disgust rarely has any reliable connection with genuine danger. It feeds on fantasy, and engineers subordination. Although it does serve a deep-seated human need - the need to represent oneself as pure and others as dirty - this is a need whose relation to social fairness looks (and is) highly questionable. Projective disgust (involving projection of disgust properties onto a group or individual) takes many forms, but it always involves linking the allegedly disgusting group or person somehow with the primary objects of disgust. Sometimes this is done by stressing the close practical connection of the group with the primary objects: untouchables in the Indian caste system were those who cleaned latrines and disposed of corpses; women seem to many men to be particularly closely linked with blood and other bodily fluids through their receptive sexuality, their role in birth, and menstruation, a common source of norms of "untouchability." Often, however, the extension works in more fantasy-laden ways, by imputing to people or groups properties similar to those that are found disgusting in the primary objects: bad smell, ooziness, rottenness, germiness, decay. Typically, these projections have no basis in reality. Jews are not really slimy, or similar to maggots, although German anti-Semities, and Hitler himself, said that they were. African-Americans do not smell worse than other human beings, although racists said that they did. And often, when there is an element of what I've called practical connection, projection imputes dirtiness or contamination where where is no reason to do so. . . Notice, then, that projective disgust involves a double fantasy: a fantasy of the dirtiness of the other and a fantasy of one's own purity. Both sides of the projection involve false belief, and both conduce to a politics of hierarchy. Societies have many ways of stigmatizing vulnerable minorities. Disgust is not the only mechanism of stigmatization. It is, however, a powerful and central one, and when it is removed (when, for example, aversion to physical contact with a racial minority is no longer present), other modes of hierarchy tend to depart along with it. It is not surprising that sexuality is an area of life in which disgust often plays a role. Sex involves the exchange of bodily fluids, and it marks us as bodily beings rather than angelic transcendent beings. So sex is a site of anxiety for anyone who is ambivalent about having an animal and mortal nature, and that includes many if not most people. Primary-object disgust therefore plays a significant role in sexual relations, as the bodily substances people encounter in sex (semen, sweat, feces, menstrual blood) are very often found disgusting and seen as contaminants. Therefore, it is not surprising that projective disgust also plays a prominent role in the sexual domain. In almost all societies, people identify a group of sexual actors as disgusting or pathological, contrasting them with "normal" or "pure" sexual actors (prominently including the people themselves and their own group). This stigmatization takes many different forms. Misogyny is an aspect of it in most cultures, as males distance themselves from the discomfort they feel by associating bodily fluids with the woman who receives them, and not, at the same time, with their own bodies . . . . There is no doubt that the body of the gay man has been a central locus of disgust-anxiety - above all, for other men. Female homosexuals may be objects of fear, or moral indignation, or generalized anxiety; but they have less often been objects of disgust. Similarly, heterosexual females may have felt negative emotions toward the male homosexual - fear, moral indignation, anxiety - but again, they have more rarely felt emotions of disgust . . . What inspires disgust is typically the male thought of the male homosexual, imagined as anally penetrable. The idea of semen and feces mixing together inside the body of a male is one of the most disgusting ideas imaginable - to males, for whom the idea of nonpenetrability is a sacred boundary against stickiness, ooze, and death. (The idea of contamination-by-penetration is probably one central idea, but the more general idea is that of the male body as defiled by the contamination of bodily fluids: and proximity to a contaminated body is itself contaminating.) The presence of a homosexual male in the neighborhood inspires the thought that one might lose one's own clean safeness, one might become the receptacle for those animal products. Thus disgust is ultimately disgust at one's own imagined penetrability and ooziness, and this is why the male homosexual is both regarded with disgust and viewed with fear as a predator who might make everyone else disgusting. The very look of such a male is itself contaminating - as we see in the extraordinary debates about showers in the military. The gaze of a homosexual male is seen as contaminating because it says, "You can be penetrated." And this means that you can be made of feces and semen and blood, not clean plastic flesh. Thus it is not surprising that (to males) the thought of homosexual sex is even more disgusting than the thought of reproductive sex, despite the strong connection of the latter with mortality and the cycle of the generations. For in heterosexual sex the male imagines that not he but a lesser being (the woman, seen as animal) receives the pollution of bodily fluids; in imagining homosexual sex he is forced to imagine that he himself might be so polluted. This inspires a stronger need for boundary drawing . . . . I contend that projective disgust plays no proper role in arguing for legal regulation, because of the emotion's normative irrationality and its connection to stigma and hierarchy. We cannot conclude that a policy is wrong simply because it is backed by a rhetoric of disgust: for there may be other better reasons in its favor. Disgust, however, often prevents us from looking for those good reasons, creating the misleading impression that the policy has already been well defended. Turning to it to legitimize policies that can be defended in other ways is therefore dangerous, because this encourages us to stop short in our search for rationally defensible categories. And the emotion itself encourages us to accept hierarchies and boundaries that are not defensible within a political tradition based on equal respect. Even those who believe that disgust still provides a sufficient reason for rendering certain practices illegal, however, should agree with a weaker thesis: namely, that disgust provides no good reason for limiting liberties or compromising equalities that are constitutionally protected (pp. 13-21). | |
Tell a homophobic person they are afraid of gays and they will go all macho and claim they aren't afraid, they are usually just prejudiced assholes where people of the same gender getting married would have zero impact on their lives but feel the need to cry about something that doesn't affect them in any real shape or form. | |
I can imagine three possible explanations:
Forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn here, but I suspect you only find fake lesbians sexy. Women who are playing lesbian characters specifically designed to appeal to straight male audiences. I used to date a lesbian[3], and well, my experience is not many real lesbians look or act like porn lesbians, just like not many real women look like porn women. That's not to say that all lesbians are "butch" (though I know a few who are), just that people in general who are genuinely interested in their own pleasure are much less interesting to watch than people who put on a show. Unless of course people enjoying their own pleasure is your thing, but then I wouldn't have thought in that case the fact that they're lesbian women would matter much to you.
You GUARANTEE it, eh? I wonder just how thorough your research has been.
I used to frequent a restaurant in Japan with two male friends, one of whom was gay. We frequently had a waitress who spoke English well, and routinely flirted with the gay guy in our group, seemingly unaware of his orientation. Or maybe not, because one day she confided in us that she wanted to go to San Francisco to see gay people because she thought they would be "cute". Like toy dogs. Now, I'm not saying that to disprove your claim, because we all know that the plural of anecdote is not data. What I'm saying is it sounds very much like you're projecting your sexuality- you have so little experience with sexuality that differs from the norms you're personally used to that you imagine everyone is after the exact same sensations in the exact same form that you are. And... they aren't. People like different things, and they like them in different ways for different reasons.
In many societies, including some of the largest/most powerful/longest lived societies in history, homosexuality has not been a reviled thing. In fact, in many societies homosexuality didn't exist. If a man one night fancies himself some special time with another man instead of a woman, that didn't necessarily mean anything to him or to anyone who happened to witness it. For example, in ancient Rome it was perfectly acceptable for a man to have sex with other men[4]. It wasn't a big deal. Even today in Japan, it's quite common to find straight men in straight relationships who enjoy a little homosexuality on the side[5]. Basically there is a cultural impetus to have children, so as long as you eventually get married and have kids, what you do otherwise isn't a big deal. In Japan homosexual behavior just doesn't get much criticism, but the notion that a person might engage in homosexuality as a lifestyle is still quite taboo. It's only in cultures where any homosexual contact has been scandalized that the merest act of male affection is taboo. In other words, it's not natural to be disgusted by any kind of homosexuality. It's a side effect of our culture and upbringing. It's unnatural. But more to the point, it doesn't matter if it's unnatural or not. 99%[6] of what people in western society do is unnatural. Hell, written language itself is unnatural, let alone sitting at a chair in a heated room using a computer to transmit written language over a network in order to discuss the naturality of homosexuality. The fact is, gay dudes exist. And gay dudes have the right to be affectionate with each other. And sometimes in your life you're going to see it. So for your own peace of mind, you need to get over it. [1] Well, usually a male-fantasy sort of bisexual woman [2] The episode where two female characters kiss has been pretty common in 90s TV [3] Don't ask... [4] Provided he wasn't the one being penetrated. Penetrating others, be they women, men, whatever was seen as manly, while being sexually submissive was seen as shameful. [5] I hear even in our own culture this isn't unheard of. [6] Not intended to be factual. | |
Let me ask you, how often are certain things inherently disgusting? THink of food, everyone has different tastes and find certain things disgusting. I don't think it is any different in this case. Considering there are also "tastes" when it comes to sexual interactions (some people like anal sex some find it disgusting, some people like playing with excrements others don't, etc.) | |
Projective disgust is what this is called. It's partially about one's own purity, and it's partially about the dirtiness of the "other". The "other" in the case of many heterosexuals is homosexuality. For many homosexuals it's heterosexuality. And what it means is basically, you're seeing things from the context of a gay person, if you're straight, and see two men kissing. And for straight guys especially, the first thing that triggers them is, when thinking things in the context of a gay person, when in a gay environment, is anal sex. Male anal sex. Secondly, it's male oral sex. It's about the sharing of saliva when two people kiss. It's about a guy going out of his traditional gender role and doing what a woman is *supposed* to do. It's about you being in a situation that you as an individual are insecure with. That you find contaminates yourself. These attitudes are 100% shaped by social norms. In many countries, men kiss as a greeting. In my life, I live with a lot of social liberal type straights and gays alike, alternative types. I kiss my straight friends, cuddle with them even. It's not a big deal at all, we're all very affectionate. It depends on how you have been raised. It depends on if you've been indoctrinated by a homophobic society to hold a homophobic mentality. Disgust is a moral based trait that becomes physical. The kissing itself isn't what disgusts you. It's the fact a MAN is doing what he isn't "supposed" to do that you find disgusting for the reasons said above. Straight men don't feel this way about lesbians because they don't have such a mentality that women aren't "supposed" to be with another woman. Same way with straight girls who love gay sex but hate basic same-sex affection between two women. Disgust is different than discomfort. Being uncomfortable with something means, OK, well, this is something I don't expect or is new to me, but it shows you this person is open to calming down, and realizing, OK, well, that's not a big deal. Disgust is a major line in the sand basically saying THIS IS WRONG. So whether people realize it or not, when you call basic same-sex affection disgusting, you're calling it wrong. | |
Honest question: How do you regard people who find spinach or some other food disgusting? | |
Most male homophobes are misogynists and misogyny is a major reason why straight guys find same-sex kissing gross if it's between two men. But actually, a lot of straight guys are NOT like this and a few have said as much here. They just don't care. They are the straight men secure in their sexuality and masculinity. They're not thinking about all the things gay men do when they see them kiss or feel some sort of contamination from association. That's why this mentality is ridiculous, because many straight people are actually evolved, so there is no reason for everyone not to be the same way. | |
Actually, it is very different, because food has texture, smell, appearance, ingredients, and actual reasons that a person can hold to, to find certain foods disgusting to them. However, a kiss is a kiss. Hand holding is hand holding. Anal sex has nothing to do with either. That's actually a lot of where projective disgust exists. People immediately think anal sex when two men kiss. They take the kiss as sexual, and then envision that situation. And they can't handle it. It's not the kissing, it's that individuals' own insecurities, and irrational aversion. | |
Ok: define "kissing to greet". I do kiss guys on the cheek to greet as well. Doesn't change the fact that when to guys french kiss i think "Yuk!". You know, just like when i see someone eat something i find disgusting. Or to be totally honest, the same would happen if i saw a really ugly guy and chick french. It's not like it's something aimed at gays. There are just things i find unpleasant to watch. And i don't think anyone can pretend they don't find things really unpleasant to watch for the sake of "tolerance" towards different things/people. I don't really care about gay people, i say: live and let live. But i'll be damned if I need to somehow change my "tastes" to be considered tolerant or whatever. | |
Depends on if they've had it. The reasons they don't like it. Human beings aren't food. So to compare the two is ridiculous. | |
That's projective disgust. It's irrational. It's homophobia. And it is aimed at gays if you don't feel yuk in other circumstances. I'll kiss my friends on the cheek or lips. Depends. If the situation is more intimate we'll kiss on the lips, quick peck. I like to hug, too. I like showing affection. It doesn't matter if it's a guy or girl, because they're both HUMAN. Seeing unattractive people kissing is more or less the same thing. It's ultimately just a kiss and it's projective disgust. It's an internalized feeling that you can't handle and project said feeling onto the unattractive person kissing. Human beings aren't food. So there's no point in bringing that up as a defense of projective disgust and casual homophobia. | |
Translation: I don't really accept homosexuality, but I can handle it and tolerate it, as long as it's not around me. The people who I've found find homosexuality off-putting and are truly straight allies, or accepting, realize they have a problem and try to fix it or naturally do so because they are immersed in a culture where they see it regularly. Or they just learn to internalize their discomfort and get over it. They don't make excuses for something that's not excusable. | |
How is that not accepting it? I accept gays can be gay as much as they want. I don't accept it as something visually pleasing, that's for sure. But I am convinced that accepting the concept as a whole is not equal to accepting certain visual aspects of it. And fixing it? I don't really see how you can change your tastes consciously. | |
People seem unable to differentiate "homophobic" and "being a cunt." Now, if you interrupted their flirting/holding hands/kissing/whatever session and started having a go because you don't want to see it any they're wrong for doing so, that's being a cunt. | |
You tolerate homosexuality. I'm just going by what you said not in regards to your irrational disgust of same-sex kissing, but you say "I don't care about gay people. Live and let live." That's effectively saying, I'll do my thing, and they'll do THEIR thing. And as long as I don't have to do their thing or be around it, then it's fine. I mean, saying you accept gays being gay is redundant because gay people are gay whether you accept they being gay or not. You're saying you accept THE FACT people are gay. Do you accept gayness? Do you accept homosexuality as natural and normal? Being truly gay accepting is more than "people are gay and I accept that." I'm not trying to nit-pick but it's something to think about. You can fix your biases because your biases aren't immutable. Given the fact A LOT people, have, in fact, fixed their biases against homosexuality. It's not a taste situation, it's a bias. Preferring one thing over the other is one thing, outright rejecting the thing you don't prefer as disgusting is bias. I'm not a doctor but I know exposure is a common cure to this type of reflexive action. | |
For what it's worth, gay guys gross me out too. I don't wanna see that shit. Fortunately I'm aware of the fact that no ones forcing me to see that shit. I have a neck, I'm perfectly capable of turning my head in a different direction if I happen to stumble upon a gay couple somewhere. On a side note, I wish people would fucking realize tolerating something does not mean embracing it. | |
Cory Booker: "Pointing the finger at gays" I was in my tolerance stage or the "I don't give a damn if someone is gay, just as long as they don't bother me" stage. I was well trained in my tolerance. I stopped telling my gay jokes. Fags, flamers and dykes became homosexuals and people of differing sexual orientation and, of course, I had my gay friend. Yet, while I was highly adroit at maintaining an air of acceptance, I couldn't betray my feelings. I was disgusted by gays. The thought of two men kissing each other was about as appealing as a frontal lobotomy. While hate is a four-letter word I never would have admitted to, the sentiment clandestinely pervaded my every interaction with homosexuals. I sheepishly shook hands with gays or completely shied away from physical contact. I still remember how my brow would often unconsciously furrow when I was with gays as thoughts would flash in my mind, "What sinners I am amongst" or "How unnatural these people are." It takes too much energy to hate. Daniel Bao showed me that. He was our gay counselor at The Bridge when I was a freshman. A beautiful man whose eloquent and poignant truths began to move me past tolerance. I still remember our first real conversation about homosexuality. I had no intention of listening to him; I only sought to argue and debate. Daniel, however, quickly disarmed me with his personal testimony. Oh, if only I could recount to you the entire conversation. He told me of people who religiously prayed to God to help them become straight. He told me of the years of denial and the pain of always feeling different. And he told me of the violence - violence from strangers and family, horrible images of beatings, destruction of property and the daily verbal condemnations. It was chilling to find that so much of the testimony he shared with me was almost identical to stories my grandparents told me about growing up Black. People found it revolting to share a meal with them and often felt it to be their duty to beat them so that they would learn proper living. Well, it didn't take me long to realize that the root of my hatred did not lie with gays but with myself. It was my problem. A problem I dealt with by ceasing to tolerate gays and instead seeking to embrace them. In these efforts I have found another community with which I feel akin and from which I draw strength. The gay people with whom I am close are some of the strongest, most passionate and caring people I know and their demands for justice are no less imperative than those of any other community. I sometimes pray for the patience that Daniel so artfully maintained with me when I fired questions and condemnations at him - because, in recent years, I have grown increasingly angry at the hypocrisy that surrounds me. In my columns I have never sought to preach self-righteous psycho-babble - but the temptation here is almost overwhelming. I have seen too many of my male friends - no matter whether they're on the football field or inside a church - bash gays and then revel in their machismo or piety. But again, I will never point a finger when the finger is best pointed at me. Alas, occasionally I still find myself acting defensive if someone thinks I am gay or sometimes I remain silent when others slam and slander. These realizations hurt me deeply. I must continue to struggle for personal justice. This is my most important endeavor. | |
That's a good point. Tolerance is fake, though. What you said wasn't tolerant. You're disgusted at human beings. You turn your head when they so much as show basic affection. That isn't tolerance. Most people who believe they're being tolerant are really just somewhat hiding the fact they're no different than those who are more openly bigoted. | |
Call it what you want, I don't expect homosexuals to make any sacrifices in their freedom for me. I don't want them to. Is that enough for you? No? Tough luck.
They aren't? Well, that is interesting. Good to know I voted for the NPD to protect traditional marriage. For a second I thought I voted for another, not interested in protecting it. But hey, since I'm no different from those bigots... Oh, sorry, I suppose you mean on a deeper, emotional level, one that doesn't really matter in this specific case? One that does not dictate my actions? | |
People need to look at that article above from Cory Booker and then ask themselves if their biases are at all reasonable or rational. Honestly, it's for your own good, because your disgust and dislike of "gay" is going to hurt you in the end. Gay people are going to be gay regardless. But you're going to miss out on potential friends and awesome opportunities in life in terms of social gatherings and events, all because you can't get over the fact some men like men. | |
Well i think that letting people doing their thing is accepting their choice. I mean I once didn't accept the choice of Girlfriend a friend made and I can assure you i made it quite clear by clearly stating how wrong he was to go out with her. This is not something i would de-facto do with gay people (unless the case is similar and one guy who's a friend is going out with an other guy who i consider to be a douche), i won't go tell them how wrong it is to go out with each other. I accept their relationship/orientation and I think that if that is what makes them happy they are totally right in doing it. I would also like to note that whether i consider it natural or not is irrelevant. I will admit it to you, I don't. But that is because of my black and white view on what is "natural" when it comes to sexual orientation. If it is normal/natural it means that the species can survive if everyone had that sexual orientation (I don't believe nature intended humanity to go extinct after 1 generation), which obviously doesn't work with homosexuality. However this is irrelevant to the aspect of considering something unpleasant to watch or not. I don't find it pleasant to see two ugly straight persons make out either yet i consider it "natural". And how is it not a taste situation? I can see the bias part considering i never frenched a dude but it's tightly linked to taste if you ask me. As a straight person my taste goes to women, I've never felt attracted to a guy nor felt the desire to do anything sexual with one. And to continue with the ugly straights comparison. I've seen many ugly women, seen many kiss, but i still find it extremely visually unpleasing to see them french someone. So I doubt "exposure" would really matter. | |
It's enough for me, I couldn't care less, because I see you as wrong. So you finding homosexuality wrong or gross more or less puts you in the ignorant/foolish category, and I move on, if you gave me a dirty look if I'm holding hands with a guy, I'd probably mock you. For others, you're likely going to get called out on your intolerance. It is what it is. It's 2013. Times have changed.
What's traditional marriage? Certainly not marriages in modern times. What are you protecting this traditional marriage from, homosexuality? Projective disgust, boys and girls, in a nutshell. The mentality that heterosexuality is pure and normal, and homosexuality is dirty and contaminates.
You're not any different than them. Intolerance is intolerance. You're intolerant. You're not extreme, but not being an extreme bigot doesn't earn medals.
I meant exactly what I said. You are not tolerant and you openly express your dislike of homosexuality, both in action and in the voting booth. That isn't tolerance. Solely allowing gay people to be gay doesn't qualify as tolerance. Gay people are gay and your approval is unnecessary to that. | |
If you found black people disgusting youd be subconsciously racist. If you find gay people being gay disgusting on a level you DONT find heterosexual displays of affection of the same strength you are being homophobic. But lets be honest that word comes in different strengths. Some homophobia is perfectly harmless. Some is very harmful. I can imagine the mindset of someone who hasnt encountered homosexuality before. It SHATTERS a social taboo in that persons mind. Thats scary. And unsettling. And as such they might be a little uncomfortable or scared. But they know inside its not REALLY wrong in any objective sense or in fact any sense at all as it doesnt harm anyone. They refuse to give into their feelings and treat anyone differently. That person is slightly homophobic but still a good person. I think the word "Homophobic" has become synonymous with "Second coming of hitler" when thats not always the case. If you understand inside that these people are equal and free to behave as they want and you dont look "down" on them in a meaningful way youre not a bad person. I cant shame someone for an innate feeling they get when something breaks down a social taboo if you realise they are totally arbitrary social taboos.
This is lovely. I have a question though to help you overcome these feelings if you wish. Do you become uncomfortable, or have you even thought about, homosexual love? Not physical love. Deep emotional love. Its actually a quote from Hazas avatar, my favourite person, Stephen Fry. Enjoy: The concept that really gets the goat of the gay-hater, the idea that really spins their melon and sickens their stomachs is that most terrible and terrifying of all human notions, love. | |
"Letting people" be gay is not accepting it. First of all, being gay is not a choice. Secondly, gay people are human beings. It's not an arbitrary act. So saying "gay people are gay and I accept that fact", it's like, tell us something we didn't know. However you have explained yourself better and yeah, you seem a less against than you did before. And that's good. What you explained is more what acceptance is. Accepting a persons' orientation as natural, their relationships as healthy, their love the same way you would with your straight friends. Accepting their orientation as OK. Supporting them when they're in need, being there for them. Simply not saying anything bad when your two gay friends kiss isn't acceptance. I was just making the point that many people call themselves "accepting" when they're really "tolerant".
But you don't find it pleasant because they're unattractive. And that's actually, you know, something qualifiable, to a certain extent. It's at least something you have a reason for. You can at least back that up with reason. Can you do so with same-sex couples? No you cannot. You're saying, they are a same-sex couple, thus unnatural, thus gross, thus effectively wrong. That's an abstract way of thinking, not something solid like "they're ugly", something you can point out and see. So although you're not a bigot and I don't wish to have you think I believe you are, you're not truly accepting. You still ultimately have the "I accept the fact you're gay, but not your gayness" mentality. You're happy they're happy, if it makes them happy, live and let live, as you said before. That's still not acceptance. It's conditional acceptance at the most. But then again..............it's good enough. I'm not going to force you to go the extra mile. It's good enough because you're not impeding on our lives. You respect our lives. That's a good thing. Respect given, respect you get. So that's sort of how I see it. It's good enough but not ideal.
Gay isn't a sexual preference, it's an immutable orientation, hence it's not about taste. Taste indicates preference. Few choose to be gay. Few choose to be straight. It's an attraction, you're ATTRACTION is towards women. Then you have taste regarding what women you're interested in. That's taste, not liking to see two unattractive people kiss is a taste thing. Not "homosexuality is unnatural and not normal and I find 2 guys kissing disgusting." That's not taste. That's a train of thought. Based on essentially nothing. That's why it's homophobia, and why homophobia is classified as irrational. | |
Here's my question: Is harmless homophobia alright? I don't like when two guys kiss either but I'm not going to do anything about it other than look away. I'm not hurting them or impeding them in any way and I'd happily talk to them when they're not kissing. I have the same problem when straight people kiss. I guess it's because I'm anti-love. | |
I'd say it's fine. You don't have to change who you are if you are not doing anything wrong. | |
As flyboy mentioned ANY kind of irrational aversion towards PEOPLE aimed at gender, race or sexual orientation is not "alright". It has never been "alright", you don't get medals for "doing nothing about it" first of all because there's nothing to be "done about it" and if you think that NOT showing any aggression is worth any kind of applause you are horribly deluded. *Toleration* in general is VERY condescending and holier-than-thou attitude, because it implies that you LET them be whatever they are and that's sickening. At the end of the day you think you are "liberal" and "good" for tolerating gay people when that shouldn't have mattered in the first place for you to feel "transcendent". Acceptance is a mark of the mature mind, something most people apparently don't possess. How ironic, since we are born with no inherent revulsion to anything not deemed dangerous by our instincts. It is your own personal insecurities that cause your disgust towards male homosexuality drilled into your skull by other insecure people we call "society". All in all if you don't go harming people for petty prejudices then that's enough for them, the only problem left is the problem you have with yourself. If you think you are happy while having any kind of disgust for basic affection then all the power to you. | |
I don't consider that homophobic. Women are generally damn good to look at. Two women making out is damn good to look at. I do not find men good to look at at all, even if they are making out with a total 9/10. So two dudes making out is...well...just as bad. Personally, I've always been the belief that being homophobic is being negative in any way towards two homos (Fuck you, it's just short for homosexual. It's not a goddamn negative slur). Such as "I don't like those guys making out because they are gay." But saying "I don't like watching two guys making out because I'm straight." is not homophobic. You don't have anything against them for being gay, you just don't find them sexually appealing at all, since they are of the same gender. I have no problem with gay people. But I like looking at women. So if two chicks want to make out in front of me, I'm all kinds of down with that. But because I'm not attracted to the male species, I'd much rather go and play GTA than watch two guys making out. If I'm in a room where two dudes are making out (I.E. if I were to live with a gay couple), I'd be as comfortable with it as I would a straight couple making out. Just...keep it quiet. Lesbians on the other hand....out comes the video camera. Because win! | |
| Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT | |
Okay firstly let me clear up where I'm coming from, I'm your typical heterosexual male aged in his 20's. And I have a dilemma - you see, I absolutely love the sight of two women kissing or getting it on. It's rather arousing, if not simply plain damn sexy as hell.
But the sight of two GUYS kissing makes my brain have a fucking seizure. I can't help it.
The definition of homophobia is "holding prejudice against homosexuals", but I hold no prejudice against a guy I meet if he tells me he's gay. Whatever, doesn't bother me, I'd still treat him the same as I treat anyone else. BUT if I saw the same guy engaging in something romantic...even something as simple as holding hands in a "we are obviously lovers" fashion with another guy...I feel the need to look away, something simply clicks in my mind and yells "oh god why did I have to see that??". An image of two guys kissing, even on the internet, makes me immediately get rid of that image as fast as my fingers allow me to and spend the next few minutes recovering from the shock of seeing such a thing, my mind desperately trying to trash that image into a virtual bin.
But I still find the sight of lesbians damn, damn sexy.
You see, what I'm asking here is why the word "homophobic" has one single definition, when I GUARANTEE you that a sizable chunk of the world's population could be classified as "homophobic" when it comes to homosexuals of their own gender, and not bothered at all by the idea of the OPPOSITE sex engaging in homosexual acts.
Case in point, I bet a lot of women find the idea of two guys getting it on quite sexy/arousing. It has to be true judging by all the stuff I find on DeviantArt (yes, that site, deal with it :P) drawn-up by female artists, and all the comments by female fans. And I've known plenty of females who could literally puke at the very thought of two girls kissing yelling "oh god disgusting!!", something that would be a welcome sight by a lot of guys. They could be called homophobic because they dislike the idea of lesbians...okay, dislike is a strong word, but they will still make them uneasy or uncomfortable. But it's only natural, is it not??
Thoughts?
And of course, what would be an Escapist discussion be without a slightly relevant video :P
Spoiler: Click to View