Amazon 7 #1 October 29, 2006 http://www.selfhelpmagazine.com/articles/glb/glbtphobia.html I went looking for some of this researh while we had another thread where Rush Limbaughs closeted past was brought up. He like many men have displayed open homophobia. Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 non-homophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience. Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence. Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: "The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [non-homophobic] men did not." Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the non-homophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the non-homophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did. Could it be??? Could the most outspoken and violent homophobes b e actually hiding something??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #2 October 29, 2006 Some, maybe. Most are probably just arseholes. The KKK are incredibly racist, but I don't think they are secretly black.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #3 October 29, 2006 QuoteThe KKK are incredibly racist, but I don't think they are secretly black. Dont forget their abject hatred of Jews.. maybe they just want to be one of GOD's chosen people and cant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #4 October 29, 2006 QuoteThe KKK are incredibly racist, but I don't think they are secretly black. You raise a very good point that I have been annoyed with for a long time. Phobia = Fear whereas ....ist means discriminatory against - eg ageist, sexist, racist So why is it that somone who has negative opinions around homosexuality is described as being afraid of it? I assure you the majority aren't scared of it, just don't approve (to varying levels of extremism) Using the same reasoning, but from the opposite side, how can you prosecute someone for being scared of something? Cases are ripped apart everyday by people digging out law books and dictionarys and trying to establish or twist legal definitions. If someone is in fear then they often have legal defences for their actions. A strange anomaly in the English language or is it because the clash of vowells in homoist just makes it too difficult!? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #5 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe KKK are incredibly racist, but I don't think they are secretly black. Dont forget their abject hatred of Jews.. maybe they just want to be one of GOD's chosen people and cant. and their hatred of Catholics somehow diffuses their guilt....-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #6 October 29, 2006 Please remember that the claim of Rush's closeted past were without a referenced source, and I showed that the claimed age of the accuser didn't match the timeline correctly. I don't know if Rush is gay, but that thread did nothing to prove he is, unless you are willing to believe unsubstantiated rumor that has a 13 or 14 year old in college having sex with Rush. I understand that you want to believe that is true, but I suggest the other post is not credible. If opposing the legalization of gay marriage makes someone a homophobe, then many liberals would be Rpublicanphobes, and Christianphobes, etc. If you don't approve of polygamy, it doesn't make you a 'phobe any more than it does if you don't approve of gay marriage. Even if we aren't just talking about not approving gay marriage, if we say a person definitely hates gays, that should not be equated with an irrational fear of something, which is the definition of a phobia.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #7 October 29, 2006 QuoteEven if we aren't just talking about not approving gay marriage, if we say a person definitely hates gays, that should not be equated with an irrational fear of something, which is the definition of a phobia. Thats what I was trying to say but I suck at getting my point across Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #8 October 29, 2006 Quoteunsubstantiated rumor that has a 13 or 14 year old in college having sex with Rush. HE was born in 1956.. Rush was born in 1951 That is quite plausible... Then we have... http://pssht.com/biography/rush_limbaugh.html Rush Limbaugh worked under an assumed identity, as do many self- loathing, closeted homosexuals. After being arrested for soliciting a gay man in Pittsburgh, Limbaugh was fired from KQV radio, according to numerous sources. and,,,, In May 2004 Rush's third wife, Marta, grew tired of never having sex with her allegedly closeted homosexual of a husband, and so asked for a divorce. Limbaugh complied after his desperate wife agreed to never reveal the true nature of Rush's sexual perversion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #9 October 29, 2006 Oh come on! I've got to say, the man sounds like a cunt but that is the weakest evidence I've ever seen! "Sources suggest there may have been a rumour he walked through a gay neighbouhood" Give me a break....Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #10 October 29, 2006 QuoteHE was born in 1956.. Rush was born in 1951 That is quite plausible... No it is not. It doesn't matter when Rush was born, he would normally have graduated in '74, so it is a bit of a stretch to say he was there at least 3 years early.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stiffler 0 #11 October 29, 2006 i can only really speak about myself.... i'm hetrosexual and homophobic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #12 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteunsubstantiated rumor that has a 13 or 14 year old in college having sex with Rush. HE was born in 1956.. Rush was born in 1951 That is quite plausible... Then we have... http://pssht.com/biography/rush_limbaugh.html Rush Limbaugh worked under an assumed identity, as do many self- loathing, closeted homosexuals. After being arrested for soliciting a gay man in Pittsburgh, Limbaugh was fired from KQV radio, according to numerous sources. and,,,, In May 2004 Rush's third wife, Marta, grew tired of never having sex with her allegedly closeted homosexual of a husband, and so asked for a divorce. Limbaugh complied after his desperate wife agreed to never reveal the true nature of Rush's sexual perversion. Here...... fishy.... fishy....... For crying out loud people, can't you see when Amazon is fuckin with ya? QuoteThis site is in no way associated with Rush Limbaugh or www.Biography.com. All material herein is intended as parody. Any similarity in format or "personnel" is purely satirical. Good one Amazon. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites swedishcelt 0 #13 October 29, 2006 Lmao. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #14 October 29, 2006 QuoteLmao. Heh, heh.. There's also an article that claims a man's ability to earn an income is directly related to the size of his penis. QuoteNext to penis size, questioning his ability to provide anadequate income is the surest way to create doubt for a man. A man who believes he's at risk with either is vulnerable on all fronts. Why are sexual prowess and income so important? Because they provide men with the most obvious symbols of identity. Externals seem to be everything in our MTV paced, consumer oriented culture. Sound bites don't give much time for more than a passing glance. If you have the right clothes, the right audio/video link, and the right job, you must be Mr. or Ms. right. If you don't, you're out. It's the external law of the jungle. Damn, where did I put that can of mousse and my silk shirt. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #15 October 29, 2006 QuoteHeh, heh.. There's also an article that claims a man's ability to earn an income is directly related to the size of his penis. Actually, that passage describes a relationship we would call "indirectly related". While it might be funny and it's CERTAINLY badly written, is it obviously and certainly wrong? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #16 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteHeh, heh.. There's also an article that claims a man's ability to earn an income is directly related to the size of his penis. Actually, that passage describes a relationship we would call "indirectly related". While it might be funny and it's CERTAINLY badly written, is it obviously and certainly wrong? Must have fooled me with the word "surest" I tend to associate that with directly. I'll defer to your expertise on this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #17 October 29, 2006 QuoteCould the most outspoken and violent homophobes b e actually hiding something??? That's my thought. I've always believed that anybody who spoke out publically against something did so to ensure that no suspicions were placed upon them. WHy do you think that liberal democrats are so against wealth and corporations, etc? The reason is because they are wealthy, they know what they do, and NOBODY should be able to get away with what they are getting away with. The Republicans, on the other hand, are doing the same thing. They just don't see anything wrong with it. Is it just coincidence that Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker, Christian Televangelists, were downed by sex scandals? Republicans "family values types" speak out against it because they know what they are doing is wrong. The Dems are doing the same thing, they just don't see anything wrong with it. Raving homophobes? Probably highly closeted. It's just my thought from experience with these folks. I call it the "American Beauty" syndrome. Th image has got to counter the real you. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Richards 0 #18 October 30, 2006 QuoteThat's my thought. I've always believed that anybody who spoke out publically against something did so to ensure that no suspicions were placed upon them. WHy do you think that liberal democrats are so against wealth and corporations, etc? The reason is because they are wealthy, they know what they do, and NOBODY should be able to get away with what they are getting away with. The Republicans, on the other hand, are doing the same thing. They just don't see anything wrong with it. Is it just coincidence that Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker, Christian Televangelists, were downed by sex scandals? Republicans "family values types" speak out against it because they know what they are doing is wrong. The Dems are doing the same thing, they just don't see anything wrong with it. Raving homophobes? Probably highly closeted. It's just my thought from experience with these folks. I call it the "American Beauty" syndrome. Th image has got to counter the real you. I have always disagreed with that argument. I think people notice it more when someone who is outspoken against something turns out to be knee deep in it, but I do not think there is a real correlation. Some may use it as compensation for hidden urges but I am sure that many are truly just straight homophobics. Granted our right wing televangelists have sex scandals but so do democrat presidents. Richards My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #12 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteunsubstantiated rumor that has a 13 or 14 year old in college having sex with Rush. HE was born in 1956.. Rush was born in 1951 That is quite plausible... Then we have... http://pssht.com/biography/rush_limbaugh.html Rush Limbaugh worked under an assumed identity, as do many self- loathing, closeted homosexuals. After being arrested for soliciting a gay man in Pittsburgh, Limbaugh was fired from KQV radio, according to numerous sources. and,,,, In May 2004 Rush's third wife, Marta, grew tired of never having sex with her allegedly closeted homosexual of a husband, and so asked for a divorce. Limbaugh complied after his desperate wife agreed to never reveal the true nature of Rush's sexual perversion. Here...... fishy.... fishy....... For crying out loud people, can't you see when Amazon is fuckin with ya? QuoteThis site is in no way associated with Rush Limbaugh or www.Biography.com. All material herein is intended as parody. Any similarity in format or "personnel" is purely satirical. Good one Amazon. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #14 October 29, 2006 QuoteLmao. Heh, heh.. There's also an article that claims a man's ability to earn an income is directly related to the size of his penis. QuoteNext to penis size, questioning his ability to provide anadequate income is the surest way to create doubt for a man. A man who believes he's at risk with either is vulnerable on all fronts. Why are sexual prowess and income so important? Because they provide men with the most obvious symbols of identity. Externals seem to be everything in our MTV paced, consumer oriented culture. Sound bites don't give much time for more than a passing glance. If you have the right clothes, the right audio/video link, and the right job, you must be Mr. or Ms. right. If you don't, you're out. It's the external law of the jungle. Damn, where did I put that can of mousse and my silk shirt. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #15 October 29, 2006 QuoteHeh, heh.. There's also an article that claims a man's ability to earn an income is directly related to the size of his penis. Actually, that passage describes a relationship we would call "indirectly related". While it might be funny and it's CERTAINLY badly written, is it obviously and certainly wrong? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #16 October 29, 2006 QuoteQuoteHeh, heh.. There's also an article that claims a man's ability to earn an income is directly related to the size of his penis. Actually, that passage describes a relationship we would call "indirectly related". While it might be funny and it's CERTAINLY badly written, is it obviously and certainly wrong? Must have fooled me with the word "surest" I tend to associate that with directly. I'll defer to your expertise on this one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 October 29, 2006 QuoteCould the most outspoken and violent homophobes b e actually hiding something??? That's my thought. I've always believed that anybody who spoke out publically against something did so to ensure that no suspicions were placed upon them. WHy do you think that liberal democrats are so against wealth and corporations, etc? The reason is because they are wealthy, they know what they do, and NOBODY should be able to get away with what they are getting away with. The Republicans, on the other hand, are doing the same thing. They just don't see anything wrong with it. Is it just coincidence that Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker, Christian Televangelists, were downed by sex scandals? Republicans "family values types" speak out against it because they know what they are doing is wrong. The Dems are doing the same thing, they just don't see anything wrong with it. Raving homophobes? Probably highly closeted. It's just my thought from experience with these folks. I call it the "American Beauty" syndrome. Th image has got to counter the real you. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richards 0 #18 October 30, 2006 QuoteThat's my thought. I've always believed that anybody who spoke out publically against something did so to ensure that no suspicions were placed upon them. WHy do you think that liberal democrats are so against wealth and corporations, etc? The reason is because they are wealthy, they know what they do, and NOBODY should be able to get away with what they are getting away with. The Republicans, on the other hand, are doing the same thing. They just don't see anything wrong with it. Is it just coincidence that Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker, Christian Televangelists, were downed by sex scandals? Republicans "family values types" speak out against it because they know what they are doing is wrong. The Dems are doing the same thing, they just don't see anything wrong with it. Raving homophobes? Probably highly closeted. It's just my thought from experience with these folks. I call it the "American Beauty" syndrome. Th image has got to counter the real you. I have always disagreed with that argument. I think people notice it more when someone who is outspoken against something turns out to be knee deep in it, but I do not think there is a real correlation. Some may use it as compensation for hidden urges but I am sure that many are truly just straight homophobics. Granted our right wing televangelists have sex scandals but so do democrat presidents. Richards My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #19 October 30, 2006 QuoteIt's just my thought from experience with these folks. I call it the "American Beauty" syndrome. Th image has got to counter the real you. Funny.. I watched that on TNT this weekend. American Beauty is one screwy movie...the whole guy rejecting guy gets shot thing.. whoa.. ..I remember coming into the barracks one night..realllly late from a club in town.. and two of the more macho guys in our unit were there in the day room making out...that was one hell of a surprise.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #20 October 30, 2006 The idea that anyone who is rabidly against, or for, a position would secretly harbor the other opinion is interesting if it is evenly applied. It never is. Then, at an organizational level: NOW members secretly want to wear French Maids outfits to office parties? ACLU members secretly want (who knows what)... The PRO-GUN and ANTI-GUN people want to jello wrestle each other? It is the most ridiculous premise that is ever used. The reason is simple. The opposing side is starting a discussion from a position of defending themselves against the lies of others, not their own words. Anyone want to post how they hate pedophiles or mass murderers? Most people who hold an opinion, do so because they feel it is the right thing to do or believe. Whether I agree with them, they believe that they are helping others. That is why liberals are more sanctimonious than 20 hookers in the first pew at church. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #21 October 30, 2006 QuoteThat is why liberals are more sanctimonious than 20 hookers in the first pew at church. Or a president and Vice President in church at the National Prayer Service after the Inaugeration in the front pews laughing and playing around while the rest of the congregation were lifing up their voices to the Lord.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pug 0 #22 October 30, 2006 QuoteThe idea that anyone who is rabidly against, or for, a position would secretly harbor the other opinion is interesting if it is evenly applied. It never is. I'd fully agree to that statement in the context in which you put it. That being said, the article quoted in the original post specified homophobic men... The text does not necessarily apply to all those who rant and rave against homosexuals, but only to those who's behaviour is typical for someone with a phobia. That's the guys who fear to enter a room with an openly gay man present; or, if they don't have a choice, don't move away from the wall, and always stand facing the gay person. Sounds somewhat silly, but I've actually worked in a company where the head of our department was openly gay, and the CEO of a daughter company acted in precisely the above manner... Given the circumstances outlined above, I wholeheartedly buy into the article. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 October 30, 2006 Are racists secretly black? I'm sure some minority of homophobes (by any reasonable definition) are closets, but I don't believe for a moment that 80% of them are. I have no idea what male tumescence is - does it eliminate that these homophobes react strongly to the sight of homosexual porn? I'm all for gay rights and I doubt I'd enjoy watching it either. I won't even watch Brokeback Mountain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #24 October 30, 2006 BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tumescence [Origin: 1880–85; < L tumēscent- (s. of tumēscēns, prp. of tumēscere to begin to swell), equiv. to tum(ēre) to swell + -ēscent- -escent] The subjects were shown gay porn.. and they got hard ons... there...does that help???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #25 October 30, 2006 but is it proof of arousal? If you were a man you'd know that hard ons can show up for a variety of reasons, the most common being that the owner is excited. Rape videos seem to turn people on too, but I don't think those people are rapists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
