Bullying - What Can Be Done?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay
By RICHARD M. RYAN and WILLIAM S. RYAN

WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?

In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men’s bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man.

One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” — the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, “I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war.”

It’s a compelling theory — and now there is scientific reason to believe it. In this month’s issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchers provide empirical evidence that homophobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire.

Our paper describes six studies conducted in the United States and Germany involving 784 university students. Participants rated their sexual orientation on a 10-point scale, ranging from gay to straight. Then they took a computer-administered test designed to measure their implicit sexual orientation. In the test, the participants were shown images and words indicative of hetero- and homosexuality (pictures of same-sex and straight couples, words like “homosexual” and “gay”) and were asked to sort them into the appropriate category, gay or straight, as quickly as possible. The computer measured their reaction times.

The twist was that before each word and image appeared, the word “me” or “other” was flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds — long enough for participants to subliminally process the word but short enough that they could not consciously see it. The theory here, known as semantic association, is that when “me” precedes words or images that reflect your sexual orientation (for example, heterosexual images for a straight person), you will sort these images into the correct category faster than when “me” precedes words or images that are incongruent with your sexual orientation (for example, homosexual images for a straight person). This technique, adapted from similar tests used to assess attitudes like subconscious racial bias, reliably distinguishes between self-identified straight individuals and those who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated “me” with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated “me” with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy.

Notably, these “discrepant” individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies; to be willing to assign significantly harsher punishments to perpetrators of petty crimes if they were presumed to be homosexual; and to express greater implicit hostility toward gay subjects (also measured with the help of subliminal priming). Thus our research suggests that some who oppose homosexuality do tacitly harbor same-sex attraction.

What leads to this repression? We found that participants who reported having supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation and less susceptible to homophobia. Individuals whose sexual identity was at odds with their implicit sexual attraction were much more frequently raised by parents perceived to be controlling, less accepting and more prejudiced against homosexuals.

It’s important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance. The costs are great, not only for the targets of anti-gay efforts but also often for the perpetrators. We would do well to remember that all involved deserve our compassion.

Richard M. Ryan is a professor of psychology, psychiatry and education at the University of Rochester. William S. Ryan is a doctoral student in psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

.

[Jive Turkey]

I remember back in grade 7 I had a teacher who was a lesbian. I can't remember how it came up, but I remember her saying something similar to what that article was talking about; many times, homophobia is a product of repressed homosexual urges. And she herself battled with similar feelings when she was younger.

[Irvine511]

the GOP is living proof of this phenomenon.

[deep]

you realize that is not a GOP problem, (there are plenty of Democrats that live in the closet and make fun of gays)

it is the individual's problem, it is the gay person themselves that is not being honest about who, what they really are.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by deep

you realize that is not a GOP problem, (there are plenty of Democrats that live in the closet and make fun of gays)

it is the individual's problem, it is the gay person themselves that is not being honest about who, what they really are.

I view it more as a problem with our society.

[Irvine511]

deep is so ironic it's almost un-ironic.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

If this doesn't set off any alarm bells, nothing will. Does your doctor still practice Miasma Theory? Blood letting? Do you still ascribe pregnancy to double seed theory? If you came across someone from 2000 years ago, you'd think he was an idiot

Wonder what they'd think of processed foods, modern art, restless leg syndrome, 2,000 page bills that no one reads before passing or people so tethered by a digital umbilical cord to their electronic devices they suffer from separation anxiety at the thought of being without it for 5 minutes. I think they'd say, "That's progress?"

And call them stupid but they could sew their own clothes, grow their own food, deliver their own babies, build their own houses, make their own wine, forge a weapon or tool and construct a boat or wagon.

How many of those can you do?

The pretentiousness to think our technology and education alone makes us "wiser" than previous generations I find very off-putting.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Wonder what they'd think of processed foods, modern art, restless leg syndrome, 2,000 page bills that no one reads before passing or people so tethered by a digital umbilical cord to their electronic devices they suffer from separation anxiety at the thought of being without it for 5 minutes. I think they'd say, "That's progress?"

And call them stupid but they could sew their own clothes, grow their own food, deliver their own babies, build their own houses, make their own wine, forge a weapon or tool and construct a boat or wagon.

How many of those can you do?

The pretentiousness to think our technology and education alone makes us "wiser" than previous generations I find very off-putting.

And all of this validates medical theories with no scientific basis how?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Seriously. We're honestly still having such a discussion in 2012?

What discussion? It's FYM going off in a tangent over something nobody has said.

Indy500
But isn't it a bit of a reduction as well when Dan Savage declares the Biblical view of human sexuality as understood by billions of people for thousands of years as "bullshit"?

That's not an endorsement of Old Testament legalism (that I've previously mentioned Christ rendered obsolete for his followers). But just because I don't proscribe to those laws I'm not condescending enough, historian or anthropologist enough to flatly judge their beliefs as "bullshit."

Doesn't stop Dan Savage and y'all though !!

Dan Savage was talking about, "the bullshit of ...menstruation, virginity, masturbation... in the Bible" all off which fall into the category of human sexuality. So how does this become just about homosexuality?

The Bible has a lot to say about sexuality. It tells me that sexuality is sacred. A gift from God. That's bullshit? The Bible teaches me the importance of faithfulness. Is that a bad thing? It talks about the dangers of uncontrolled lust. Is that not without merit? And yes, billions of people over thousands of years have lived very happy lives following this "bullshit."

The Dan Savages of the word have nothing but contempt for moral absolutes. He claims to have the knowledge of moral bullshit and non-bullshit -- of good and evil. The Bible teaches about that too.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by digitize

And all of this validates medical theories with no scientific basis how?

Does that make them "stupid" or just wrong?

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Wonder what they'd think of processed foods, modern art, restless leg syndrome, 2,000 page bills that no one reads before passing or people so tethered by a digital umbilical cord to their electronic devices they suffer from separation anxiety at the thought of being without it for 5 minutes. I think they'd say, "That's progress?"

And call them stupid but they could sew their own clothes, grow their own food, deliver their own babies, build their own houses, make their own wine, forge a weapon or tool and construct a boat or wagon.

How many of those can you do?

The pretentiousness to think our technology and education alone makes us "wiser" than previous generations I find very off-putting.

Processed foods were a godsend when they first came out. They didn't expire right away, resulting in food being more affordable and lasting longer for people. Art is art. I think they'd say "that's progress" to the fact that people are no longer dying of colds, starvation, or a lack of hygiene. They'd say "that's progress" to the streets no longer reeking of urine and feces. They'd say "that's progress" to the fact that women now rarely die in child birth, you no longer have to walk 10 hours to find food, and people now live over twice as long. They would definitely think our technological advances were progress, considering I can now communicate with people all over the world at the push of a button.

The fact is, they couldn't deliver their own babies. They had to have many children because most of them died shortly after being born. Women died in childbirth all the time. I think it's insulting to the women who want to have a doctor there to check the health of their baby that you think they "can't" give birth on their own. Tons of people can and do grow their own food today. Why do people not do this? Because we don't need to, thanks to technology. If you have a strong passion for it, you're in the business of providing for others.

Most of their homes are crumbling ruins and barely provided shelter as it was. We have architects today to make homes more functional. We no longer have to do these things unless we want to, and if we want to, we can. I view this as progress. Yes, many people of today are spoiled, but I'd rather live in a spoiled society than one where girls are forced to start having kids at the age of thirteen because we all died painful deaths at a young age from famine and disease.

Don't view the past through rose colored lenses.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

It's the way we've always done things, but it's different than those other ways we've always done things that turned out to be misguided, you guys. INDY's right on this one. Homosexuality is wrong because it just is wrong. You either feel that truth or you don't. INDY does. He knows it to be. And thus, gays cannot get married, because INDY knows he's right in his heart of hearts, even if he cannot scrap together one shred of a coherent argument against it. We've always done it this way, it must be right. Don't compare it to slavery or considering minorities to be inferior, because it's different. Why is it different? Because INDY just knows it is.

You seriously have to stop putting words in my mouth. OK?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

Don't view the past through rose colored lenses.

Ya, I wouldn't trade places either. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate humanity through the ages.

Leonardo Da Vinci's flying machine didn't get off the ground.



Guess he was "stupid."

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Does that make them "stupid" or just wrong?

It makes them wrong because they didn't have the last 2000 years of discoveries for reference. The people sticking to those beliefs these days however....

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

Processed foods were a godsend when they first came out. They didn't expire right away, resulting in food being more affordable and lasting longer for people. Art is art. I think they'd say "that's progress" to the fact that people are no longer dying of colds, starvation, or a lack of hygiene. They'd say "that's progress" to the streets no longer reeking of urine and feces. They'd say "that's progress" to the fact that women now rarely die in child birth, you no longer have to walk 10 hours to find food, and people now live over twice as long. They would definitely think our technological advances were progress, considering I can now communicate with people all over the world at the push of a button.

The fact is, they couldn't deliver their own babies. They had to have many children because most of them died shortly after being born. Women died in childbirth all the time. I think it's insulting to the women who want to have a doctor there to check the health of their baby that you think they "can't" give birth on their own. Tons of people can and do grow their own food today. Why do people not do this? Because we don't need to, thanks to technology. If you have a strong passion for it, you're in the business of providing for others.

Most of their homes are crumbling ruins and barely provided shelter as it was. We have architects today to make homes more functional. We no longer have to do these things unless we want to, and if we want to, we can. I view this as progress. Yes, many people of today are spoiled, but I'd rather live in a spoiled society than one where girls are forced to start having kids at the age of thirteen because we all died painful deaths at a young age from famine and disease.

Don't view the past through rose colored lenses.

fucking word

[moiph]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

Processed foods were a godsend when they first came out. They didn't expire right away, resulting in food being more affordable and lasting longer for people. Art is art. I think they'd say "that's progress" to the fact that people are no longer dying of colds, starvation, or a lack of hygiene. They'd say "that's progress" to the streets no longer reeking of urine and feces. They'd say "that's progress" to the fact that women now rarely die in child birth, you no longer have to walk 10 hours to find food, and people now live over twice as long. They would definitely think our technological advances were progress, considering I can now communicate with people all over the world at the push of a button.

The fact is, they couldn't deliver their own babies. They had to have many children because most of them died shortly after being born. Women died in childbirth all the time. I think it's insulting to the women who want to have a doctor there to check the health of their baby that you think they "can't" give birth on their own. Tons of people can and do grow their own food today. Why do people not do this? Because we don't need to, thanks to technology. If you have a strong passion for it, you're in the business of providing for others.

Most of their homes are crumbling ruins and barely provided shelter as it was. We have architects today to make homes more functional. We no longer have to do these things unless we want to, and if we want to, we can. I view this as progress. Yes, many people of today are spoiled, but I'd rather live in a spoiled society than one where girls are forced to start having kids at the age of thirteen because we all died painful deaths at a young age from famine and disease.

Don't view the past through rose colored lenses.

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Ya, I wouldn't trade places either. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate humanity through the ages.

Leonardo Da Vinci's flying machine didn't get off the ground.



Guess he was "stupid."

How is that even relevant? It's not that people back then were "stupid". It's that they were ignorant and uneducated. I'm sure people will think the same thing about us 2000 years from now. The fact is that people back then simply did not know how human sexuality worked, they just knew that it existed. Today, we know. Just because a few people thought something without any scientific backing a few thousand years ago and have maintained that same, unscientific belief for thousands of years does not mean it's correct.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Ya, I wouldn't trade places either. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate humanity through the ages.

Leonardo Da Vinci's flying machine didn't get off the ground.



Guess he was "stupid."

Who said anything about not appreciating humanity through the ages? I have a very active appreciation. We're talking about people basing their lives off millenias old, completely antiquated belief systems. Ignorance in it's purest

[digitize]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Does that make them "stupid" or just wrong?

It doesn't make them stupid. It makes them sometimes ignorant, though not of any fault of their own (and there's plenty about which we are all surely ignorant too... I have no doubt that some medical habits of today will be mocked a century from now). It also presents me with no obligation to behave under rules encouraged by previous ignorance.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Does that make them "stupid" or just wrong?

I think that this has been clarified by more than one poster since you asked this question. I hope you won't pretend it hasn't been clarified.