Gay Haters Find Homoporn The Hottest
Ph.D. candidate Nathan Heflick blogs at Psychology Today about a study which suggests homophobic men are most aroused by gay male porn. There were three videos:
One video depicted straight sex, one depicted lesbian sex and one depicted gay male sex. While this was happening, a device was attached to each participant's penis. This device has been found to be triggered by sexual arousal, but not other types of arousal (such as nervousness, or fear - arousal often has a very different meaning in psychology than in popular usage). When viewing lesbian sex and straight sex, both the homophobic and the non-homophobic men showed increased penis circumference. For gay male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened penis arousal.Heterosexual men with the most anti-gay attitudes, when asked, reported not being sexually aroused by gay male sex videos. But, their penises reported otherwise.
That tends to confirm what's been presumed for decades, that bashers are latent gays.
Robert Evans at June 17, 2011 1:51 AM
I'll take this study with a truckload of salt......outcomes and conclusions are too, too clear for it to be anywhere near credible
Redrajesh at June 17, 2011 2:31 AM
The study's conclusions may indicate some truth, but:
Maybe the homophobes were only aroused when viewing gay male porn and wearing the wang-o-meter? Or to put it another way, how does test design affect the study outcome?
Maybe the volunteers taking part in the study were turned on by wearing the wang-o-meter, while non-volonteers wouldn't have been? Or, to put it another way, how does subject selection affect the study outcome?
Old RPM Daddy at June 17, 2011 3:32 AM
So all homophobes are mentally ill and demonstrating a reaction formation - how convenient.
I'm not a big fan of homophobia, but this article is really nothing more than an attempt to degrade people are critical of homosexuality. The same argument, based on plethysmography, has been used to argue that all women are lesbians.
It's highly unlikely that every male who had revealed homophobic opinions in that study also revealed themselves to be homosexual. More likely the researchers hewed the group to produce these findings - or the people reporting the findings are reporting them selectively.
silas at June 17, 2011 4:59 AM
I would be skeptical of any conclusion drawn from people who would participate in this sort of study.
Or is this the new normal and I missed the memo?
MarkD at June 17, 2011 6:24 AM
Eh, I dunno, sometimes what revolts us can be the most erotic as long as its in our heads.
At the risk of oversharing, I've had fantasies about being raped by octagenerian toothless rednecks... that doesn't mean I want it to happen. Sometimes the gross factor gives stuff a forbidden thrill.
NicoleK at June 17, 2011 6:28 AM
This is about as reliable as the study that "proved" that children of lesbians were well-adjusted - by asking 70 lesbians about their kids. No school records, no cross-checking.
Some things are so stupid only intellectuals will believe them.
Ben David at June 17, 2011 6:34 AM
@ "The same argument, based on plethysmography, has been used to argue that all women are lesbians."
That's right. Women even lubricate when shown bestiality. Basically, although they steadfastly deny it, it turns out women are physically turned on by almost everything.
What does that say about women?
Jay R at June 17, 2011 7:29 AM
it turns out women are physically turned on by almost everything.
What does that say about women?
That as one of the few mamillian species whos females do not have heat cycles they've been biologically programed to be ready for sex at all times
lujlp at June 17, 2011 7:44 AM
I totally agree with NicoleK. I've been turned on by...well, lots of stuff. Ahem. Jay R, I guess what that says about women is that we're a lot like men.
Pricklypear at June 17, 2011 7:47 AM
Maybe the volunteers taking part in the study were turned on by wearing the wang-o-meter, while non-volonteers wouldn't have been? Or, to put it another way, how does subject selection affect the study outcome?
From a quick skim, looks like they used a within-subjects design here, in which everyone (those who scored high on homophobia in the initial survey and those who did not) to the same experimental conditions. For a selection bias to account for these data, you'd need to argue that those who scored high on homophobia showed different arousal patterns an similar non-homophobes to gay porn but not other forms of porn, for some otherwise unaccounted-for reason. Not impossible, but Occam's razor supports the conclusion that there is a connection between anti-gay attitudes and arousal to homosexual acts in men.
Christopher at June 17, 2011 8:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/17/gay_haters_find.html#comment-2277562">comment from ChristopherThank you, Christopher.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2011 9:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/17/gay_haters_find.html#comment-2277567">comment from Jay Rit turns out women are physically turned on by almost everything. What does that say about women?
Women have more fluid sexuality than men.
That's Meredith Chivers' research on the bonobos having sex and women being turned on by that footage, and I mention it in an upcoming column.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2011 9:13 AM
Christopher:"...Occum's razor supports the conclusion that there is a connection between anti-gay attitudes and arousal to homosexual acts in men."
Occum's razor is summarized as " The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one"
So if one is virulently anti-gay, then he will, not may, but will be aroused by viewing homosexual acts ? Sounds too simple to fit the Occam's razor rule. In fact, I would submit that you are missing several steps between "anti-gay" and "arousal by homosexual acts".
Nick at June 17, 2011 10:12 AM
No one should conclude from this study that homophobes are closet gays, which is what some erroneously glean from this. It's suggesting that the most virulent homophobes aren't all the 0% gay 100% heterosexuals they wish to be. Sexuality is rarely black and white. What this might be suggesting is that Mr. "I am 100% straight!" might secretly be about 80% straight, perhaps 20% gay...and not comfortable with the idea.
Patrick at June 17, 2011 10:52 AM
On a side note, what happened to 'Psychology Today'? I hadn't read it for years, then bought a copy at the bookstore one day -- and it was packed with articles for women, by women, about women, and all the ads were directed at women.
And it was all about how women needed to fix their man, find a man, what was wrong with their man, why they couldn't keep a man - it read like a version of Cosmopolitan for girls with glasses.
Sad decline of a once-proud publication.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 17, 2011 11:10 AM
it turns out women are physically turned on by almost everything.
What does that say about women?
THAT THEY'RE ALL A BUNCH OF BRAZEN TRAMPS! (No, just kidding. Like Amy says, it means that their sexuality is more fluid.)
Patrick at June 17, 2011 11:16 AM
> 80% straight, perhaps 20% gay
What does it mean to be 20% gay? Every fifth time you have sex, it's gay sex?
Snoopy at June 17, 2011 11:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/17/gay_haters_find.html#comment-2277807">comment from PatrickYou can call me "brazen tramp!" Or, "You little minx." "Sugar tits" also works.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2011 11:38 AM
Not every fifth time you have sex...it's merely to suggest that you're predominantly heterosexual, but you might have some attraction for your own sex. Kinsey suggested that sexual orientation wasn't as clearly defined as one is absolutely heterosexual. One is absolutely homosexual. One is absolutely bisexual. Just some might be more attracted in the other direction than others. Whether they act on it is their own choice, since we all have free will.
Of course, Kinsey also concluded that 10% of the population is gay...which I doubt.
Patrick at June 17, 2011 12:05 PM
"Sugar Tits"? I've never tasted your tits, Amy. And no offense, but I'm not particularly interested in doing so. (0%/100% here, to put it in Kinsey's terms.)
Patrick at June 17, 2011 12:07 PM
I really doubt that there's a selection bias for wangometers. I mean how do you stumble on a sufficient number of wangometerphiles to have a proper experiment?
But this line does seem suspect ..
For gay male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened penis arousal.
None of the non-homophobes were aroused but all the homophobes were? So there were no men in the non group who demonstrated a homosexual response? This is unusual in itself. But then all homophobes did. None did not? Sorry but the combined odds of those outcomes is very small. The researchers would need to explain how they came upon such an unusual non-homophobe group.
I haven't read the study, but I suspect that the outcomes are closer to Patrick's interpretation than the one that's being promoted.
Duvall at June 17, 2011 12:23 PM
I thought this was old news? Not anecdotally, but didn't they use penile plethysmography to show that the biggest anti-gay bigots were the secretly penis-cravers?
"Sexuality is rarely black and white. What this might be suggesting is that Mr. "I am 100% straight!"
Sounds like a case of projection- presuming you're bisexual and find it hard to grasp that many men are 100% straight. The idea that most people's sexuality is fluid has been overblown.
Primateus at June 17, 2011 2:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/06/17/gay_haters_find.html#comment-2278150">comment from PrimateusWomen's sexuality is more fluid.
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2011 2:40 PM
NicoleK, you're not the only one. A lot of BDSM erotica has this kind of theme, where the aggressor is truly hideous and undesirable, and the victim resists him out of revulsion. It's just another flavor of sadism.
A lot of my fantasies include awful things I would never want to happen in real life. I think the shock and peril aspects help create arousal.
Insufficient Poison at June 17, 2011 3:47 PM
Patrick, if I remember Kinsey's summation of his data correctly, he concluded that the graph of sexuality across the population was a two-humped camel, so to speak. On his 0-5 scale, with 0 being 100% straight and 5 being 100% gay, he concluded that the vast majority of the population were 1's and 4's. But as you say, there are contemporary researchers who are questioning several aspects of Kinsey's work.
"Of course, Kinsey also concluded that 10% of the population is gay...which I doubt."
You think it's higher or lower? The data I've seen suggests about 5%.
Cousin Dave at June 17, 2011 4:35 PM
Occum's razor is summarized as " The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one"...So if one is virulently anti-gay, then he will, not may, but will be aroused by viewing homosexual acts ? Sounds too simple to fit the Occam's razor rule. In fact, I would submit that you are missing several steps between "anti-gay" and "arousal by homosexual acts".
1 - LOL at the initial misspelling, given the context. (not judging, just laughing)
2 - The answer to your question is no. Reread my comment, and the one it was responding to. I submit you didn't understand what I was saying.
None of the non-homophobes were aroused but all the homophobes were? So there were no men in the non group who demonstrated a homosexual response? This is unusual in itself. But then all homophobes did. None did not?
No. Keeping it simple, statistical analysis in studies like this is done using group means and group variability. What this is saying is that as a group, non-homophobes exhibited no significant difference in tumescence from baseline for the gay porn videos, but homophobes, as a group, did. These data don't tell us about how any given individual within the either group responded. It's entirely possible that some homophobes stayed as limp as cooked spaghetti and that some non-homophobes were ready for a Congressional twitter feed close-up. But overall, the group means showed a statistically reliable difference.
Christopher at June 17, 2011 5:30 PM
That's fine Christopher, but the articles are claiming that there was no response except among homophobes, of whom all demonstrated a response.
Duvall at June 18, 2011 5:28 AM
I'm not surprised by this. I've long thought people who hate gays with intensity are somewhat gay themselves, otherwise it wouldn't bother them so much. What they really hate is their own reflection.
Trust at June 18, 2011 6:04 AM
For gay male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened penis arousal.
Aside from other comments on methodology above, did they consider or control for other physiological reactions that can cause penis arousal? Anger, for instance. Maybe the homophobic men were getting all worked up about administering a righteous beating, but the non-homophobic men didn't care either way.
I haven't looked at the link or the study, so maybe this is covered somewhere. But it's worth noting that erections can be triggered by different pathways. Preventing men from wetting the bed in the morning for instance.
Again, I suppose I should read the damn study, but how much reaction are we talking about when measuring "increased penis circumference"? It sounds like we're not talking 'hang your towels on it' here, but minor changes? If it's small (the reaction not the wang!) then factors like change in blood pressure and so on, from disgust or otherwise, could explain it without inferring sexual arousal.
Ltw at June 18, 2011 6:45 AM
Maybe the homophobic men were getting all worked up about administering a righteous beating
Damn. I missed a great opportunity for a gratuitous 'truncheon' joke there.
Ltw at June 18, 2011 7:06 AM
Cousin Dave: You think it's higher or lower? The data I've seen suggests about 5%.
I was thinking it's lower. I don't quite believe that one in ten people are gay. 5%, one in twenty, sounds right to me.
And according to my psych prof, you have your facts straight (no pun intended) regarding Kinsey's work.
Patrick at June 20, 2011 11:28 AM
Primateus: Sounds like a case of projection- presuming you're bisexual and find it hard to grasp that many men are 100% straight. The idea that most people's sexuality is fluid has been overblown.
Primateus, you cut my sentence off. I was suggesting that a person who vehemently insists "I am 100% straight!" is not truly what he claims. He might occasionally have a fleeting thought about it, or might not be as adverse to a 3-some with a guy and a girl as he might insist.
I hope you aren't suggesting that I'M saying I'm 100% straight. The regulars on this forum know better.
Patrick at June 20, 2011 11:33 AM
Cousin Dave: "You think it's higher or lower? The data I've seen suggests about 5%."
That sounds about right. I think 10% is way too high. My psych prof says your information about Kinsey is straight.
Patrick at June 20, 2011 11:54 AM
Leave a comment