The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis
- Thread starter H-KQGE
- Start date
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'.
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,
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,
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?
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.
So does that mean there are people walking around who are gay but still instinctively averse to it?
So does that mean there are people walking around who are gay but still instinctively averse to it?
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure it's not.
Adaryn
The Living Force
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.
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.
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…
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
The Living Force
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.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 inthegailygrind.com
It seems as though he was gay prior to going into leading a conversion therapy group.
JGeropoulas
The Living Force
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.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...