The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[Joe]

Perhaps this otherwise healthy "homophobia" was hijacked by a divide and conquer operation, an all-too common STS tactic: promote homosexuality on the one hand, while simultaneously amplifying homophobia to the point where our crucial bonds to others from the same sex are weakened or even destroyed, because everything is so messed up. Just speculating of course, could be totally off.

Just about everything on this planet in the realm of human affairs seems to be aimed towards 'divide and conquer'. It takes a lot of perspicacity to avoid the ubiquitous bait.

 

[Joe]

There is another take on the fear of contamination or infection - on occasion I've heard expressed one of the fears of homophobia is that homosexuals can make others turn homosexual through ordinary social contact.

In our modern world with its great availability and variety of personal social interactions, this is certainly something to be considered. If a heterosexual male spent enough time with gay male friends, I would not be surprised if they succumbed to overt and implicit encouragement to 'dabble'.

 

[rrraven]

what about gay animals?
and ''natural'' aversion ,really? there were gay people among hunter/gatherers ,accepted,respected and often valued for their artistic talents
this phobia shtick seems to be a ''new'' thing (new as in neo as in Neolithic ),must be all those plants,lol,

 

[Joe]

what about gay animals?

What has that got to do with humans and their higher brains? And how many gay animals are there relative to the numbers in entire animal kingdom?

and ''natural'' aversion ,really? there were gay people among hunter/gatherers ,accepted,respected and often valued for their artistic talents
this phobia shtick seems to be a ''new'' thing

What does an aversion have to do with gay people being around for a long time? Are you saying that natural aversion is negatively correlated with recognition/valuation of talents?

 

[rrraven]

What has that got to do with humans and their higher brains? And how many gay animals are there relative to the numbers in entire animal kingdom?



What does an aversion have to do with gay people being around for a long time? Are you saying that natural aversion is negatively correlated with recognition/valuation of talents?

I am trying to say aversion is not natural it is a learned response

 

[whitecoast]

The aversion thing reminds me of Jonathan Haidt's work about moral instincts. So one may have or lack a "sacredness" moral instinct, where there's a lot more crossover between moral interpretations and sanitary interpretations. But the base of that can be developed in quite a few ways depending on culture. The example he gave was while living in India he developed an aversion to leaving books on the ground. So different cultural environments can bring that up in different ways. In traditional cultures that are heteronormative the homosexuality thing can be seen as incongruent, and differences typically bring distrust or suspicion.

Worse still, homophobia (or homoaversion, as it should properly called, according to Greg Cochran) is itself heritable, at least 54% so. Yes, homophobes were much more “born that way” than homosexuals themselves!

So does that mean there are people walking around who are gay but still instinctively averse to it?

 

[mkrnhr]

I don't see a good outcome for the way these issues are being handled in the present time. It's one thing to be homosexual and private about it; something else to demand that this part of the self take center stage. Most heterosexual people do not make an issue of their sexual preferences; it's private, and the overt declarations of gays that "I'm gay! You must embrace me and my lifestyle or you are a bad person" is the direct wrong way to go about this.

I think this is a crucial point. I don't think the "aversion" is towards a germ infection per se, allthough one can suppose that given that viruses and such may carry a certain signature in the information field that could be picked up by certain individuals, but rather to the symptoms, namely the "abnormality" and the promiscuity that is implied by the overt identification. The same avertion is present for such abnormalities as incest or an old man marrying a young woman who could be his daughter or granddaughter. One must notice the aversion to promiscuous women among heterosexual men, even if one would use "evolutional psychology" to argue otherwise.

As an insignificant anecdote, we had dinner once with a private homosexual, and depite evrybody knowing it, there was no tension whatsoever. On the other occasion his partner came, and this one had exagerated mannerisms that one could describe as a bad caricature of a old woman. Things were different this time because all he talked about was sex-related things. It made everybody uncomfortable, including the first person.

 

[Chu]

I think this is a crucial point. I don't think the "aversion" is towards a germ infection per se, allthough one can suppose that given that viruses and such may carry a certain signature in the information field that could be picked up by certain individuals, but rather to the symptoms, namely the "abnormality" and the promiscuity that is implied by the overt identification.

Agreed. The inherent "aversion" would be for an overt display of an "abnormal" behavior, AND in todays' society, the blattant and forceful normalization of such. It is hard to imagine an instinctual avertion to a human being without knowing his or her sexual orientation (there could be an aversion, but perhaps linked to other factors, an association with someone toxic, an instinctual defense mechanism, etc.) The "aversion" comes when there is a feeling of being forced to accept something as "normal and cool", different from what it really is, IMO. In the example you gave (and I would have some of my own which are very similar), that's the case, I think.

So, the desire to respect, tolerate and get along, and value a human being above his or her "preferences" is there, but for it to work, it has to go in both directions, without forcing and/or turning it into a paramoralistic game of "you either take me with everything I am and my overt display of X, Y and Z making sure to pretend everything is normal, and that perhaps I'm even better than you, or else...". That's what many minorities refuse to understand and apply, IMO.

 

[Ant22]

So does that mean there are people walking around who are gay but still instinctively averse to it?

Maybe there are. Milo Yiannopoulos said in an interview with Joe Rogan that "If I could choose, I wouldn’t be a homosexual" but added "That doesn’t make me self-loathing."

Although Wikipedia isn't the best source, their section on Yannopoulos and LGBT issues does give an impression of a gay person with negative feelings towards homosexuality. I guess the fact that his preferences are homosexual makes his attitude weaker than a heterosexual person's homophobia, but if he was straight those feelings may have been stronger:

Milo Yiannopoulos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While Yiannopoulos is openly gay, he has described being gay as "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring [gay people] pain and unhappiness."[85]

Some of his earliest mainstream media appearances concerned sexuality. In 2011 he debated same-sex marriage on Channel 4's 10 O'Clock Live with Boy George, and a year later on Newsnight. In 2013 he opposed the provision of "Soho masses". In November 2013, he debated with singer Will Young on Newsnight about the use of the word "gay" as a playground taunt.[86] During an interview with Joe Rogan, in 2015, Yiannopoulos said that "If I could choose, I wouldn't be a homosexual."[87]

In October 24, 2016, Yiannopoulos gave a speech at the University of Delaware during which he described trans people as mentally ill and, among other things, stated that "Trannies can never be women, or men for the small slice of women insane enough to desire to give up female privilege." He further claimed that he spoke in the best interest of trans people when he additionally encouraged the audience to "never feel bad for mocking a transgender person...It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life."[88]The administrators and college Republicans were harshly condemned by students, alumni and state GOP leaders for hosting Yiannopoulos, as well as by other LGBT Republicans who denounced Yiannopoulos for alienating them as fellow Republicans with his statements.[89]

In October 2017, he married his husband in Hawaii. That same month, he came out against the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, arguing it would violate religious freedom.[75][90][91] He also expressed concerns that same-sex marriage could have an unfavourable effect on gay culture, saying during an interview on The Rubin Report that he "quite like(s) the naughty dissident aspect of gay life"[92]. He has expressed a similar sentiment elsewhere, arguing that the function of homosexuals in society is to experiment with creative and "aberrant" lifestyles, citing an apparent overrepresentation of gays in the arts and "all the various corridors of intellect, power and influence"[92][93]

Kevin D. Williamson in the National Review argued that "Milo Yiannopoulos of Breitbart London has done more to put homosexual camp in the service of right-wing authoritarianism than any man has since the fellows at Hugo Boss sewed all those nifty SS uniforms. Concerning Donald Trump's decision to break from Barack Obama's practice of issuing a proclamation each year in honor of Gay Pride Month, Yiannopoulos said, "I don't care about that. What I care about is the president protecting gay people from foreign policy, through strong borders, and stuff like that".[94][50]

In 2017, Yiannopoulos gave an interview with contributors to America Magazine. The interview was not accepted for publication and was posted to Yiannopoulos's personal website, where it was picked up by the conservative Catholic media group Church Militant. In the interview, he criticised Pope Francis for his liberalism in areas such as reaching out to gay people, adding that the best media advice he could give to Francis would be "stop talking". Yiannopoulos reiterated his belief that homosexuality is a sin and denounced those (including clergy) who sought to change Church dogma on the issue. "You don't see me disputing the Church's teachings on homosexuality...I wouldn't dream of demanding that the Church throw away her hard truths just to lie to me in hopes I’ll feel better about myself," he said.[95]

In January 2019, Yianopoulos was interviewed by Michael Voris of Church Militant to discuss his new book Diabolical: How Pope Francis Has Betrayed Clerical Abuse Victims Like Me—and Why He Has To Go. When Voris challenged him to stop engaging in homosexual behaviour, he said, "I know that's a better way. And I know that's the right thing" but stated that he is "just not there yet. And I don’t know if I'll get there". He also claimed that Catholic sexual abuse cases were linked to homosexual behaviour, calling it a "gay disease."[96]

In August 2019, Yiannopoulos was grand marshal for a straight pride parade in Boston, organized by the far-right group Resist Marxism. The parade was ostensibly to celebrate heterosexuality.[97][98][99]

 

[Joe]

I am trying to say aversion is not natural it is a learned response

I'm pretty sure it's not.

 

[Adaryn]

Re: the aversion thing. Well, unless we're talking platonic love (which must be even rarer in homosexual circles than in heterosexual ones), the sexual practice itself is objectively brutal, repellent and unnatural, yes? So maybe that would partly explain the aversion and why people in general (esp. men) seem more strongly repulsed by homosexuality than by lesbianism, since the latter (supposedly) seems like a "softer" practice and doesn't imply physical acts that are brutal and unnatural. And women being naturally more touchy-feely than men, displays of affection between women would be more tolerated than between men, and could easily pass for friendship - blurring the line and making the whole thing more acceptable. Whereas between men, affectionate gestures would immediately imply something fishy is going on and would conjure up some rather disgusting images/scenes. Just a guess on my part based on how I feel about the issue.
Personally, I couldn't care less about other people's sexuality and what they do privately, so long as the free will of all involved parties is respected, and as long as I don't see it (doesn't matter if they're homo or hetero, I just don't want to see it or hear about it). What makes me cringe is the proselytism, propaganda and people flaunting their homo/bi/tri/whateversexuality in everybody's face.

 

[Joe]

Abstract A small but important portion of the population is attracted to individuals of the same sex. This phenomenon raises the question, why selection forces have allowed such dispositions to exist in the population. The weak selection pressures hypothesis, argues that same-sex attraction has been the result of weak selection pressures during the period of human evolution. Such pressures were predominantly the consequence of arranged marriage in which individuals, irrespectively of their attractions, are mated to opposite-sex partners. Arranged marriage is more common in societies which base their subsistence on agriculture and animal husbandry than in societies which base their subsistence on hunting and gathering. Accordingly, it is predicted that homosexuality would be more prevalent in the former than in the latter societies. Using anthropolog- ical evidence from the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, the present study finds support for this hypothesis. The evolutionary implications of this evidence are further discussed.”

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Menelaos_Apostolou/publication/311913894_Is_Homosexuality_more_Prevalent_in_Agropastoral_than_in_Hunting_and_Gathering_Societies_Evidence_from_the_Standard_Cross-Cultural_Sample/links/5a434f36aca272d29459ca82/Is-Homosexuality-more-Prevalent-in-Agropastoral-than-in-Hunting-and-Gathering-Societies-Evidence-from-the-Standard-Cross-Cultural-Sample.pdf?origin=publication_detail

Same-sex attraction is the result of arranged marriages? I think this guy is just trolling for grant money. He dedicated another paper to the theory that the evolutionary origins of lesbianism is men being sexually excited by women sleeping with other women, but only when it's just about a fling for all involved.

The evolution of female same-sex attraction: The male choice hypothesis

Prevalence studies indicate that about one in five women experience some degree of same-sex attraction. The evolutionary origins of such attraction ar…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Joe]

So does that mean there are people walking around who are gay but still instinctively averse to it?

At least for most of human history, homosexual men were 'ashamed' about their orientation. That's generally understood to be the result of social stigma, but you have to wonder.

 

[JGeropoulas]

This article is from a pro LGBT news source. It's good that he's talking out against conversion therapy.

Conversion Therapy Group Founder Comes Out As Gay, Issues Apology To LGBT Community

A South Carolina man who founded one of the nation's largest conversion therapy ministries has come out as gay and has issued an apology for his role in

thegailygrind.com

It seems as though he was gay prior to going into leading a conversion therapy group.

Some of the most intense "homophobia" is found in closeted gay people, but that's usually stems from their homophobic social milieu more than actual aversion to their homosexuality.

 

[JGeropoulas]

Even the term "homofobia" seems to be coined with some hidden agenda - like somebody is vewy vewy afwaid of gays, instead just being not so enthusiastic about there ways... Maybe homocritic could be better term instead...

Even better, why not avoid yet another label and simply refer to such attitudes as fearful, intolerant, judgmental, ignorant, unkind or rude? The term which needs revising is "homosexual" which puts too much focus on sexual aspects of a same-sex (gender) orientation. A more accurate term would be the broader term "homophilic" or "homophilia", someone who's attracted to, emotionally opens most deeply to, bonds strongest with and loves members of their own gender.