![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 20:46:30
Is this a real phobia? I rather doubt
it. I'm not afraid of homosexuals. I
try hard to understand what exactly is
different in the consciousness of attraction-
i don't get it; and i always feel isolated
and enstranged when i speak to homosexual
men; and strangely i am a bit jealous, but
certainly not phobic.Maybe the word is wrong.
Squiggles
Posted by madison88 on September 21, 2002, at 22:28:00
In reply to Homophobia, posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 20:46:30
there is more to it than fear. there is facination and temptation. i don't believe that we are or are not homosexual. it is more like a continuum, and some people feel more free to act on urges than others. i would wager that someone who fears homosexuality has conflicts within him/herself as to where they are on the continuum. they don't know where they are, what for sure they believe about what it means to be attracted to the same sex. i personally am attracted to both sexes. it has been hard to admit this. i choose to do nothing about my feelings about other females. i don't consider myself free to do anything. growing up i have internalized morals and values that view homosexuality as deviant. i have worked to have an open mind when it comes to what others choose to do, but i personally will not engage in homosexual activities. i know where i am on the continuum, somewhere in the middle, but that doesn't mean i have to get with both sexes. what do you think? should somebody who finds them selves attracted to males and females hold as a goal to become open minded enough to act in such a way? Do the morals i hold in my mind impede my health? i do fear going beyond my limits, would that mean i am homophobic?
Posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 22:42:58
In reply to Re: Homophobia, posted by madison88 on September 21, 2002, at 22:28:00
That's an interesting post; very thoughtful.
If i were to report on what i think on this
issue, from a very personal asocial point of
view, i would say that sexuality can be seen
as an appetite from one perspective - in which
case sex is irrelevant. It is conceivable that
if i lay down with a girl, i may become physical
with her.The physical aspect is not mysterious. It is
the attraction that is, for me anyway. There
is so much written on this topic - i really
don't know whether it genetic or social or
congenital, etc.Deep down though, i think that it is social,
with a certain inclination for the opposite or
same sex for whatever reason. And being social
animals, this can overcome the inclination and
tip the balance.The fear of homosexuality (that is the repugance
and censor - which is what is meant by fear) has
religious and social roots and is very much a
part of our civilization. So any abberation from
that norm becomes an anarchic and therefore
frightening thing. And i think for that reason
it is not openly done on the whole, barring the
homosexual activists.The social boundaries are very strong - they
become part of your learned responses - almost
automatic reflexes.Squiggles
Posted by madison88 on September 22, 2002, at 0:32:12
In reply to Re: Homophobia » madison88, posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 22:42:58
just the fact that if everyone were homosexual, society would be doomed, we would become extinct, is justification for homophobia to be part of that which keeps society structured. homosexuality makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. i wonder if homosexuality is actually on the rise, and if it is, if it has to do with the fact that we are overpopulated. of course, these views are weak predictors of what an individual does.
your mention of instincts bring some things to my mind. i consider the random thoughts that float through my head rather instinct driven. some of the thoughts, when i see a female who i find attractive, are explicitly sexual. therefore i conclude that to be attracted to both females and males is "natural" for me. why this occurs is not explained by evolutionary theory previously mentioned, nor by any other explanation i can come up with. to say i have such thought because i am bisexual is to enter a circular argument. i am bisexual b/c i have such thoughts; i have such thoughts b/c i am bisexual. it doesn't get me an answer as to why.
i am not free to act on this instincts, however. religious/societal rules are deeply ingrained. but i don't think they are instinctual, b/c they don't keep such thoughts from entering my consciousness (now i am getting Freudian). they come into play after thoughts arise, at the time when i have to choose to further think about a girl sexually or to stop on that train of thought. i usually stop. i guess my question is, which is more important, religious/societal influences, which are deeply ingrained but are not totally reflexes (although close), or impulses that seem to come naturally to my consciousness, whose origin i can't explain? what what is a healthy balance of the two?
Posted by Rick on September 22, 2002, at 1:22:33
In reply to Homophobia, posted by Squiggles on September 21, 2002, at 20:46:30
> Is this a real phobia? I rather doubt
> it.I would guess the term originally was specific to some sort of fear of homosexuality, but in common usage it seems to have evolved into an extremely broad (and thus less meaningful) term encompassing any real or perceived negativity towards homosexuality.
If the terms "negativity" and "homosexuality" seem to lack any specificity (are we talking attitudes? actions? people? sexual preference? sexual behavior? stereotypes? insecurity? moral positions?), that's my point! You can take it dozens of different ways, and they could each end up being labeled "homophobia."
Now, getting back to the original meaning, if this involved a situation where someone feared they might have homosexual tendencies (which might or might not be manifested in outward animosity toward homosexuals), yes, I would call that a phobia, or perhaps more accurately an anxiety disorder...just as repetitive, intrusive, anxiety-provoking thoughts are often a component of OCD.
Actually, this topic is too deep for me, and you and Madison have posted some very provocative ideas. I just thought I'd throw out a couple not-so-fleshed-out thoughts that came to mind.
If it turns out homophobia IS an anxiety disorder, when will "they" try to rename it "homosexuality anxiety disorder" as "they" did for social phobia?
Maybe when Glaxxo Smith Kline gets an indication added to Paxil for this? (I think they're already nearing FDA approval of an indication for CAD - Chocolate Anxiety Disorder. That means they'll have indications for GAD, SAD, CAD, and HAD. Which will mean the next one will be for AAD - Acronym Anxiety Disorder. So sorry about the truly pathetic attempt at humor...it's past my bedtime. I truly hope I either don't press the Post button, or that Dr. Bob deletes the post so that I can maintain what little credibility I have.)I would imagine Dr. Bob will soon be shunting this thread to one of the other Babble Boards.
Rick
Posted by Squiggles on September 22, 2002, at 7:37:45
In reply to Re: society/religion vs natural impulses, posted by madison88 on September 22, 2002, at 0:32:12
I really don't know maddison; it is a mystery
to me - infact, sex is a mystery to me --
really. As for evolutionary theory, i think
that given the astronomical proliferation of
3 -7 babies every second on the globe, homosexuality
is hardly a threat.Squiggles
Posted by Squiggles on September 22, 2002, at 7:40:56
In reply to Re: Homophobia » Squiggles, posted by Rick on September 22, 2002, at 1:22:33
Hee.
just one last word - it is very easy to
control sexuality through drugs - think
about it; or am i being paranoid :-)Squiggles
Posted by jay60 on September 22, 2002, at 9:39:05
In reply to Re: Homophobia » Rick , posted by Squiggles on September 22, 2002, at 7:40:56
I believe Homophobia is caused purely from the fear of being homosexual. People not wanting to admit to themselves that they have homosexual fantasies because of the social stigmas involved. I have had homosexual friend and have even been called a homo a few times because of this but this did not trouble me because I am only attracted to women, many times a man that I would assume to be attractive
To woman do not seem to get much action. And men that appear to be unattractive to me do. This is just one more thing I don't understand about women. I guest I would understand this more if I was gay.
Posted by oracle on September 22, 2002, at 10:34:51
In reply to Re: society/religion vs natural impulses, posted by madison88 on September 22, 2002, at 0:32:12
just the fact that if everyone were homosexual, society would be doomed, we would become extinct, is justification for homophobia to be part of that which keeps society structured. homosexuality makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. i wonder if homosexuality is actually on the rise, and if it is, if it has to do with the fact that we are overpopulated.
Homosexuality happens in all cultures and amoung humans and animals at a rate between 5-10%, which is stable over time.
Posted by Rick on September 22, 2002, at 11:50:25
In reply to Re: society/religion vs natural impulses, posted by oracle on September 22, 2002, at 10:34:51
> just the fact that if everyone were homosexual, society would be doomed, we would become extinct, is justification for homophobia to be part of that which keeps society structured. homosexuality makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. i wonder if homosexuality is actually on the rise, and if it is, if it has to do with the fact that we are overpopulated.
>
> Homosexuality happens in all cultures and amoung humans and animals at a rate between 5-10%, which is stable over time.Interesting points, but I'm a bit confused by your first sentence. Are you saying that in the absence of homophobia everyone would be gay? If so, why? Are you perhaps using homophobia as a synonym for heterosexuality? If so, the term homophobia has an even broader set of interpretations than I thought...
Posted by Rick on September 22, 2002, at 12:02:51
In reply to Re: Homophobia » Rick , posted by Squiggles on September 22, 2002, at 7:40:56
> Hee.
>
> just one last word - it is very easy to
> control sexuality through drugs - think
> about it; or am i being paranoid :-)
>
> SquigglesClever comment, especially since it can be interpreted at least ten different ways. One of those came to mind quickly, followed in short order by the other nine. But I won't ask you to divulge what you had in mind!
Posted by oracle on September 22, 2002, at 13:12:48
In reply to Re: society/religion vs natural impulses » oracle, posted by Rick on September 22, 2002, at 11:50:25
Soemone else said:
> > just the fact that if everyone were homosexual, society would be doomed, we would become extinct, is justification for homophobia to be part of that which keeps society structured. homosexuality makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective. i wonder if homosexuality is actually on the rise, and if it is, if it has to do with the fact that we are overpopulated.
Oracle said:
> > Homosexuality happens in all cultures and amoung humans and animals at a rate between 5-10%, which is stable over time.Then Rick said:
> Interesting points, but I'm a bit confused by your first sentence. Are you saying that in the absence of homophobia everyone would be gay? If so, why? Are you perhaps using homophobia as a synonym for heterosexuality? If so, the term homophobia has an even broader set of interpretations than I thought...
Oracle again:
Sorry I did not make it clear who said what. I cannot answer all your questions, but the idea that gay=no kids is incorrect. Sexuality is not black and white. Go to any "gay pride" type event
and you will discover many gay folk have kids.
And not by adoption, but by convential means.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 22, 2002, at 13:30:32
In reply to Re: Homophobia » Squiggles, posted by Rick on September 22, 2002, at 1:22:33
> I would imagine Dr. Bob will soon be shunting this thread to one of the other Babble Boards.
You read my mind! Yes, follow-ups not about medication should be redirected to Psycho-Social-Babble, thanks.
Bob
PS: And follow-ups regarding posting policies to Psycho-Babble Administration.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.