What is being homophobic? Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT | |
Example for clarity: Reaction to two men kissing in a public park 2: "Those two men kissing is disgusting" 3: "They shouldn't be allowed to do that." Notice the difference in tone and restriction. While they are all opinions, there are clearly good options and bad options here. | |
well, I would say that disgust is mostly a learned reaction and not necessarily a natural one, especially in this case. For me there isnt much difference if its a gay, lesbian or hetero couple who is kissing or what else, but I'm certainly also not especially attracted to watching either of them. | |
No... no no no no no No matter how you try to justify it (it's my opinion, I'm hurting no one, you have to tolerate me) bigotry is bigotry, even if it's silent. Flyboy has done nothing but calling everyone out on that (very nifty debating skills by the way, kudos). He's not denying you your opinion, he's not stopping you from saying anything, he's just pointing out that irrational feelings of disgust because of internal projection are kinda dick moves. You're right with one thing, though. Human are never completely unbiased. Probably never will be. That doesn't, however, excuse anything. If the civil rights movement taught us anything, society as a whole can change. It takes time and it might seem like we'll never ever get there but just because the situation is shitty right now, that shouldn't stop us from striving for an ideal. Nothing stifles positive change more than "eh, no one's getting hurt so why bother?" from a large amount of people. | |
It is reasonable. I never said it wasn't. Homophobia in general isn't an issue until it's made one so as long as a person doesn't make it one, it's not a concern. However, the words "uncomfortable" have not been used. The words used have been unnatural and disgusting. Finding affection between same-sex couples uncomfortable, while irrational in itself, is generally something a person can work through. The way to stop being discomforted is by becoming comfortable. It takes time but the person is making an effort. Calling same-sex affection, and homosexuality in general, disgusting and unnatural? No. It is not bigoted to call that bullshit out. Some things are right and some things are wrong. That is wrong.
It's honestly, legitimately, not as difficult as people think it is. It's not *that* difficult because it's happening every day in the world around us. People becoming increasingly comfortable with homosexuality. Why? Because they OPENED their minds. That's the point I've been making. You shouldn't want to feel discomfort around friends because their love lives or they showing affection with mates makes you squeamish. No-one should want that. This isn't a two-way street type deal. It's understandable to be uncomfortable with homosexuality given we all have grown up in a homophobic world, but it's not a right way of thinking, either, it's harmful to the person who feels that way.
So it's not unhealthy to more or less dread your friends/family showing affection towards their mate because they're same-sex oriented? It's not at all a problem that basic same-sex affection, which is increasingly common in the USA at least, causes you to avert your eyes and borderline panic? That's a rational response? No.
That's respect. Not tolerance. Not hitting a man or not throwing up on them when you see them kissing a guy (I know, extreme examples, just making a point) is NOT an accomplishment, so that needs to be made clear. It is NOT a cause for celebration, and it is NOT anything to be proud of, because the underlying issue still exists. Bad behaviors are bad behaviors. You can respect the fact people have their views yet not in any way think it's OK for them to have those views. Ignorance, insecurity, isn't good, and there is no point in calling it good. The point is, if you are respectful, and you don't make your problems my problem, then everything is fine, and that's what has been said throughout the thread. But clearly, that isn't happening, hence there is a problem. When you have posters saying "I can't help but look away or give a dirty look" or "It's unnatural" or "I voted for traditional marriage", then you know that this is much more about a true dislike of homosexuality than anything else. Not for everyone, but several here. And unless you call it out, and challenge it, the cycle continues. If a person made a "I find heterosexual kissing disgusting" thread, what would the responses be? Oh yeah, threads like this are barely ever made. Let's call it what it is. And I by no means am attacking you, but let's stop being dense. | |
I'm pretty sure that a phobia is a fear. It doesn't need to be the same as a fear of spiders (arachnophobia), but it's still fear. You know those people who you see who are scared of being "gayed up" by the homosexuals, or are scared of gays turning their children gay, giving people aids or just turning people to the path of the devil *cough* Westborough *cough*. Yeah, those are homophobes. By definition, I think the people who simply hate gays aren't homophobic, they just hate gay people. I'm not saying they're right for doing so, but that's what I think. | |
It can easily be said this thread is intolerant. So why are we talking about tolerance? This thread began with someone saying he finds male homosexuality gross and fetishizes female-female intercourse. So homophobia and some subtle misogyny, quite frankly. If you want to promote "tolerance", then why do we have threads like this stating homosexuality is gross? Or people calling homosexuality disgusting and unnatural? Then saying "I'm tolerant............I have gay friends." Even when SEVERAL straight MEN have said it does not matter to them who kisses who. Can we drop the excuse making and blame game and take responsibility? I'll do it, you do it, we all need to do it. Don't run to the excuse locker to justify yourself; that does nothing but expose you. | |
Isnt a discussion automatically lost of you get personal? Ad Hominem, is the latin term, if I recall correctly. | |
How can i not do the same with same sex couples? I don't consider men attractive at all, how is that different from considering an ugly girl not attractive?
Tastes can be very immutable. My orientation is in a sense a key determinant of my taste. And my attraction is not towards all women, just like it is not towards any males. Actually the problem I have is that you are determined to knowing why i don't like seeing two men frenching better than myself. In a sense I find it rather pretentious you would know me better than myself. The only person who could make such claims is my shrink (if i ever were to have one). You could be right, but i'm not convinced. I doubt you have sufficient knowledge of Psychology and my mind to make such claims with enough certainty. | |
Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexual people, or people who are identified as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. So yes, that would make you homophobic. You have an irrational fear, or disgust, of gay men. You seem to think it goes something like this. That straight men like gay woman and not gay men, and that straight woman like gay men and not gay woman. That's silly. Don't justify your intolerance, m'kay? I could try to determine why you personally find acts of affection between two men disgusting, but there are usually a number of reasons and I don't know you on a personal level. My advice? Try to show a little more maturity and rational behavior in those situations. Also, try to be around more gay men, so that the sight can "normalize" for you. Or be homophobic, your call. | |
It is, and essentially stomping your feet will not change that, but I'll go along with it.
Gay is not a thing. Snails for the purpose of eating is a thing. You're eating that *thing*, which happens to be a snail. In this case, this is about gay. And you not liking same-sex interaction between men. You don't like snails because it's a thing you don't connect towards eating. That's an actual quantifiable reason to not like something. You don't like two men kissing because it's two men. There is nothing in that. It would be one thing to say "I don't like two men kissing, because men have more saliva" or "two men with beards kissing is weird, that looks like it would be super rough on their skin"........something of that sort. No. It's I don't like it, it's two men. There is ZERO quantifiable reasoning in that. When you have no similar feeling towards two women and a man and a woman doing the very same thing. And actually, holding hands and sex came into the picture when it was brought up. The OP brought up hands holding and YOU brought up sex. It all comes down to insecurity of homosexuality and thus it all is on the table.
Because you have zero reason to have such an irrational view towards same-sex kissing. Because you've been culturally brainwashed. Hell, you can say you've been culturally brainwashed into not liking snail as food because you only connect it to living sea life. But snails aren't human beings you have to associate with on a daily basis. So let's stop acting as if a gay man is comparable to a snail. | |
This. OT: Ehhh, I'm bi, I don't like seeing two guys get off in public. I don't like seeing anyone do that crap in pbulic tbh, I don't need to see it and will usually attempt to ignore it as best I can. | |
Remember, Phobia doesn't mean "fear" that's just the single english word that is closest to the term. Phobia is more than a fear, the fundamental aspect of a phobia is that it is dysfunctional and unreasonable. Phobia is more like "severe aversion". Someone who has arachnophobia isn't just afraid of spiders like a sissy cowards, THEY HATE THEM! When they see a spider they want to crush it. It's completely unreasonable, they don't have such violent aversion to other small invertebrates like flies or ants. That's what homophobia is: a sudden, irrational and paranoid over reaction to the appearance of same sex affection It's not "fear" like "OMG! there's a giant bear in a theatre, run away", it's more like: "Oh fuck, there's a giant spider on that seat over there" or "Oh fuck, There's two fags on the seats over there." And I must add that Homophobia is NOT an accurate scientific term. For one, Homo means Mankind, Homos means "the same". The illusion is in the term "Homosexual" it should be "homossexual" the "S" on the end is hidden. But even if it was "homosphobia" that would still only be fear of things that are the same, and doesn't address how this well known phenomenon of how people react to men being sexually intimate with other men, it normally is very different to seeing two women being sexually intimate. If you are going to go greek, do all the say. But none the less, "Homophobic" is a term that has stuck, even though the "Homo" prefix technically implies it's a fear of mankind, it's somewhat acceptable as "Homo" has become a term used for gay men, though hardly the most appropriate. TLDR: You know what arachnophobia is? It's that but the same reaction to seeing guys making out. | |
Okay, that's true. Ammend "natural, instinctive" to "ingrained and automatic". | |
You know, I thought on this recently. I don't have a problem with homosexuals as they are, but overt displays of physical affection by them .... bugs me more than with heterosexual or lesbian couples. Thing is, I believe it to have something to do with my tendency to put myself in the shoes of people I observe. The thought of taking part in homosexual activities gives me the exact same uncomfortable feeling as I get when I observe these overt displays of affection. I do believe that where I homosexual I'd have the same feeling of discomfort if I where to see overt displays of affection by a heterosexual couple (unless I put myself in the woman's shoes) or lesbian couple. That's just the way I think I am. | |
An interessting example: If your reaction is different based on that couple being a man and a woman, two women or two men, then you might have been brainwashed by society. | |
You're not attracted to men because you're apparently 100% straight and you're not attracted to MEN, attractiveness be damned. There is no reason outside of "they're a man=no", which is understandable, you're 100% straight and that's how your mind fundamentally operates. That's not taste. That's immutable orientation. You're not attracted to unattractive women because they're unattractive. That's taste. You prefer attractive women because your TASTE leads you to seeking attractive women out, they are more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. And your taste leads you to not seek unattractive women out. That's preferences based on what you are interested in and those interests are based on taste.
Your attraction is a key determinant of your taste towards women. Men aren't even on the table for you. Only women are on the table for you. So there is no taste necessary with men, you're 100% straight.
You don't need to be convinced. I'm not telling you what to think. I *am* saying research has been done on the subject, I've read it, and I posted it on this page. It's up to you to ask yourself do you have a legitimate reason why you feel the way you do towards two guys showing affection. Not frenching. French kissing/making out/whatever you want to call it. That's a different situation. We're talking about an innocent kiss. Maybe a bit a tongue, maybe not, all in all, an innocent kiss that occurs between a man and woman and two women daily. Not outright frenching. Basic affection. Affection done out of love. Not sexualized. Turning an innocent kiss into a sexualized incident actually is more or less a perfect example of projective disgust, not saying you did that. | |
You're not a homophobic. I get the same feeling when I see 2 men kissing to, I also get the same feeling when I see my parents kiss as well doesn't mean anything. | |
My reaction would be different for those things, but that's OK. I would prefer to see two women making out, or a guy and a girl, than two guys making out. That's just preference. Would your reaction be different to these scenarios? Or has society brain washed you too? | |
Time to post the projective disgust article again so everyone can read it, because the descriptions most are giving (either theoretically or actual individual thought) are classic examples of projective disgust: http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/06/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). | |
You indirectly just compared homosexuality to incest. | |
Ok, look, guys. I'm on this site to procrastinate, so I can't dignify either of you with a full response right now. You both have good points. I actually agree with you on 90% of what you've said, and I think I've misrepresented my own position quite badly. Flyboy seemed to be slightly too aggressive. The vibe I got was 'if you're even slightly bothered by this, then you're bad and/or have some psychological problem.' Whereas my position is something like 'If you're sightly bothered by this, then you're not intrinsically bad, but you should try to move past it. In the meantime, simply not allowing yourself to become a problem for other people is adequate. Anyway, I'll expand on this properly another time. Got essays to do... | |
That makes a surprizing amount of sense. If you put yourself into the position of either of a lesbian couple, you would still kiss a woman, which would be nice if you are attracted to that woman. I dont find it disgusting to kiss a woman per se, it depends on the individual, as it does with men. I actually have tried it and wasnt disgusted, it was just a kiss without all the excitement I experiance when kissing a guy I'm attracted to. | |
Well I think we have had a communication issue here. I have always used the word frenching because that is what i had in mind. I wouldn't find two guys showing less explicit signs of affections "disgusting", maybe 'weird' but not something that would make want to look the other way. | |
Alright I read most of your posts and I understand what you're saying but honestly if you want people to see your point of view you need to stop being so hostile. [/protip] | |
It all depends on what they're actually doing, really. Just a small kiss - perfectly fine. Deep Snog that makes it look like they're attempting to eat one another's face? Not particularly keen on being audience to that, really. To me, these aren't even restricted by sexuality/gender - if a straight/lesbian couple started dry-humping in the street I wouldn't be too keen on that either. Some things are better left behind closed doors, and bringing private actions into the public arena while I'm present is just going to make me shout out where the nearest hotel is so they can get a room. | |
Fair enough, maybe it's different for different people. | |
why is he wealthy but she looks homeless? If they are together, why doesnt he care for her? I am sure more attracted to men of my age, a difference of so many decades wouldnt be for me. there is even disgust involved, I wouldnt want to make out with my father and men at his age or even older make me think of that, society has brainwashed me to not like incest...I guess? I also dont think at such an age difference they got too much in common, and there might be only one thing going on, but I dont know that for sure. I dont really find a tiny man disgusting, lots of men are smaller than me anyways, I would wonder about other things there. My mind can be a weird place. I find morbidly obese people pretty unattractive, even potentially disgusting, that is sure a mixture of personal prefferences and social indoctrination, but also the knowledge about how unhealthy it is, like with people who are tanned like a fried chicken. Mentally handicapped hmm? thats tuogh and really depends on the individual. I know that people with downssyndrome are often the most friendly and open hearted people you can find, and I sure find those traits attractive, but I also value it highly to be on one intelectual level with my partner. so, you see, I tend to analyze my initial reaction and I'm certainly not a blank slate, but I try to make sure that my thought process is not based on something compleetly irrational. | |
Actually, I think he was doing alright, until this post:
You lost me there | |
Every single theoretical situation you just gave, there is a quantifiable reason for having a bias against these things. Quantifiable, doesn't necessarily mean justifiable. But quantifiable. With that being said, an attractive older couple I don't see people considering disgusting; more like beautiful and reveling the fact they look good for their ages. People are naturally drawn to things that are attractive/they find attractive, that's just how it is. An attractive overweight individual is going to be considered attractive regardless of their weight as long as they aren't completely obese (aka Adele, Queen Latifah). Preferences are based on taste. The taste of most persons are centralized around what/who they find appealing, and attractive. What they get a benefit from. However, just because something isn't in your preference range does not mean that thing is disgusting, unnatural or wrong. It's those mentalities that are largely socially/culturally constructed. And what society as a whole considers attractive vs not attractive from a taste point of view is also largely social/cultural constructs. Because tastes can and do change from individual to individual as they go through life. | |
I do not see it as "wrong". That was part of my point to begin with.
Traditional marriage, according to my bros at the NPD, is the marriage between a man and a woman. Preferably both white. I find the sentiment absolutely ridiculous on numerous levels. For starters, I don't really care for marriage anyway, so protecting its supposed sancity isn't an interest of mine. Second, I do not think marriage is something the state or church should have any hand in. Third, I have no problem with two men or two woman getting married.
No, but it does earn gay men and women the freedom to express their love openly (to a point). I think that's worth something.
For the record, I voted for the SPD. If I had any interest in preventing homosexuality from becoming tolerated my vote would have gone to the CDU or even the aforementioned NPD. I made this extremely obvious. But you missed it, because you're so desperately trying to paint me as a homophobic cunt. What I actually post in this thread is irrelevant to you, because you see what you want to see. | |
Maybe we do have a communication issue haha. I was going by what the OP said where he said basic displays of affection between two guys bothered him. Check his post. He said holding hands bothered him into basically having convulsions. And basic kissing he couldn't handle at all. Even the inference of it he can't seemingly handle. Now, if we were talking about deep kissing, that's sexual. That's understandable, you wouldn't want to see two guys deep kissing because you wouldn't personally want to see two guys tearing into each other. Your mind will undoutedly go to sex because deep kissing is an aggressive act. It's a lustful act. I don't want to see two women deep kissing, I don't find it disgusting. But I don't want to see it. That's more of a sexuality thing, than a taste thing. I'm not one of those anti-PDA types but deep kissing of any kind bothers me in public because it's inconsiderate and rude. But a couple of any gender combination showing some affection that doesn't cross the proverbial line of respect shouldn't be classified as disgusting for expressing their love for one another. | |
CDU isnt quite a choice if you arent over 60, or so old you'd like to assure a place in heaven by voting the party that states religion in its name. you could vote FDP to make sure to support gays, as they have westerwelle, but then, hes not really that much of a politican to my liking...
how can you not care for marriage? It includes legal options you wouldnt otherwise have, like making decissions if your partner cant (as in medical decissions). It also offers advantages in job and taxes and you are able to adopt, for example. cant help it, but I think I'm forgetting something important about marriage... | |
I guess that was my point. Initial reactions can often be way off the mark. In the example where one person was handicapped, my initial reaction would be: Is he taking advantage of her? How does that relationship work with such an imbalance? That's a bit gross that he would want to make out with her, etc. Maybe that's what some of the people posting here have. For many people they have very limited exposure to the sight of two guys making out. Maybe their initial reaction to 2 dudes making out is based on all sorts of irrational and stupid reasons, and then if they sat down and had a beer with those 2 guys and realised they were a couple of really nice people they would come to the same conclusion of: "man I was a bit of a dick for thinking their relationship was odd when I first saw them". | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 16 NEXT | |
This is a good post. Except for one thing............I do think it's in your control. Not necessarily the fact people are indoctrinated into being homophobia, but it can be eliminated. That is something that can be controlled and repression in itself is controlling it and oftentimes leads to a deletion of homophobia because you just because used to thinking a certain way and your thought processes working a certain way. But as long as you admit that homophobia is wrong and you don't harm non-heterosexual individuals and impose your homophobia onto them, then no-one can do anything about it and no-one would need to, because it's not an issue in the first place.