It seems to me that this stupid double standard is very recent (and typical of the Western world, I don't imagine a Muslim saying "gays are eww but lesbians are hot"). Most probably, it has to do a lot with media and the porn industry. In Ancient Greece male homosexuality was more accepted than female for sure. As for the rest of history,under Christianism, both male and female homosexuality was equally frowned upon. Maybe they spoke more about males than about females because they were more visible, but not because they'd accept lesbian women more.
Other possible reason is that men feel threatened by gay men, because they remind them of their latent homosexual tendencies. Gays show to them that male on male sex is a possibility, and that they could end up engaging in it as well, given the right circumstances.
I don't think it has anything to do with hate against feminity. A lot of gay men aren't feminine, because they choose macho roles, or just because they don't want to follow the "effeminate gay" stereotype, or are part of other subcultures. There's no proof either that gay men are feminized through hormones in the womb. There are many signs that point towards masculinization of the brain in gay and bi men, not to feminization. For example, certain brain areas that are bigger in men than in women, are bigger in gay men than in straight men. However, there's not a definitive answer yet, as far as I know.
What? Big corporations, are you stupid or what? Where have I said anything about big corporations? It's a FACT that pornography and media like TV or cinema encourage lesbian scenes but not gay scenes. Watch some music videoclips and count the examples of two girls kissing against two guys kissing. You must have been living under a rock your whole life if you don't know that. So, for the love of Satan or whatever the fuck you worship, know what you're talking about before opening your mouth.
It's a proven fact that many homophobes have repressed homosexual feelings, as well.
And saying that homophobes hate gays because they're effeminate is retarded. Homosexuality is not the same as effeminacy. Only ignorants confuse those two things, the same that believe that gays are women trapped in a man's body and all that shit. Homophobes hate gays because they're men having sex with men. Period. They don't hate the tough Spartans less than they hate "sissies".
All these studies showed that men who showed arousal to homosexual images had, in fact, some real homosexual tendencies. This other study showed that this was more common in homophobes than in non-homophobes:
That could be the reason why there is a higher degree of disconnect in women, but you seem to ignore that there are still some degree of disconnection in men. The conclusion should be that men who showed arousal to homosexual images are more likely to experience homosexual tendencies, but it isn't always the case.
The documentary of the sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal - [link]
As you can see, in all of the bar graphs shows that there is some degree of disconnection in all sexes and preferences.
Regarding pupil dilation and sexual arousal, you should be taking in consideration of these observations.
"In the present study the simple relationship of male self-reported sexual orientation with pupil dilation to the same or other sex (r = .57) was weaker in effect than corresponding effects of other research based on genital arousal measures, with r’s ranging from.77 to.83 , . In this sense, the assessment of genital arousal measures appears to be the more precise measure of the two. "
"The present study had several methodological limitations. Pupils dilate to factors other than to how arousing stimuli are, such as the amount of cognitive load they produce and the stimuli’s level of luminance and contrast , . In the present study, average luminance of stimuli and contrast was not set equal across stimuli. This was attempted but the resulting stimuli appeared extremely distorted and could not be used, which is not an uncommon problem when adjusting these factors, especially in videos."
"Personal and interpersonal factors other than sexual attraction may affect pupil dilation to stimuli of the same sex or other sex. For example, participants may dilate in response to comparing themselves, on a physical or social level, more with stimuli of their own sex than with the other sex (e.g., by asking whether they are better looking than the stimulus)."
As you can see, in all of the bar graphs shows that there is some degree of disconnection in all sexes and preferences.
But when straight men show slight arousal to homosexual images, this can be explained by the fact that few people is 100% straight. As Kinsey found out, most persons are somewhere in the middle of the continuum. Straight men showed some arousal to gay porn, yes, but not enough to speak of disconnection of body/mind. Also, notice that these men actually reported being somehow aroused by the images; they were aware of their arousal. Women, on the other hand, seemed to have no clue; their subjective reports don't match physical response.
As for the limitations of the pupil-dilation study, all of these studies have weaknesses (genital measurement has the problem of sample bias, for example), but this doesn't mean that they're invalid as a whole. The researchers certainly didn't thought so; if they did, they wouldn't have published them. Sexuality is not like physics, you're not going to get completely reliable and exact data, but for the moment, this is the best we have, so we'll have to stick with it.
But when straight men show slight arousal to homosexual images, this can be explained by the fact that few people is 100% straight. As Kinsey found out, most persons are somewhere in the middle of the continuum.
-That's one way of looking at it. There's other reasons such as the observation that many people will respond to sexual stimulis regardless of orientation and the people they're watching. AVEN have self-reported experiences from asexual males that looks into pornography in order to full-fill their libido. There is also the factor into how emotions can provoke sexual arousal. There are also plenty of other forums which have reports of individuals whose porn preference collides with their orientation and yet they go with what they feel that their orientation regardless of gender. There are still some degree of disconnect in males, but it seems like most would ignore the degree because it does seems to work to predict one's orientation in males for the most part. Oh, just to let you know, the Kinsey scale isn't without problems and then there is problems with all other definitions of sexuality and so on. My point here, arousal is not always an accurate determiner of one's sexuality. There's the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid by the way. In short to say, there could be plenty of reason why some degrees of disconnection is observed in males, but that's not to say male arousal isn't useless as a predictor of his sexuality in general.
Now, I'd like to know where is this experiment with heterosexual and homosexual man/woman having sex with men and women. The results shows that they are clearly physiologically aroused (speaking from memory, mind you), but that can be explained by tactile stimulation.
Of course, sexuality is not like physics and there's still problems such as subjective measures which isn't gonna go away considering the core aspects of sexuality researches has a lot to do with subjectivity.
Still, I rather think about weird shit and logic issues then be a simpleton.
(plus for me it's hard to start threads here, because I can answer most philosophical or religious questions on my own, or read up to equip myself to be able to do that, so the stuff that is left over afterwards is necessarily fucked up)
Its fairly complicated. But ultimately its about asserting dominance over weaker subjects. If you look at primate social hierarchy you'll see that the weaker, more feminine and ultimately less aggressive members of the group are very quickly subject to physical imposition by the stronger ones. In humans, physical strength has a strong correlation with mental aptitude. Which is why its rare to see a large or muscular man with homosexual tendencies. It has to do, primarily, with the way in which homosexual tendencies are predisposed. Hormones in the womb and the child's exposure to them contributes heavily to sexuality, which is again why you see most gay men as expressing feminine mental and physical qualities. As well as random encounters at a young age, which can trigger sexual thoughts towards the same gender.
Its a result of our desire for social dominance. If a man picks on a smaller, weaker or mentally less aggressive male then he is asserting dominance. The problem, of course, is that this is instinctual but also perpetuated behavior through inaction. Children will pick on anyone weaker than they are with little prejudice if the opportunity presents itself. If the child fails to mature beyond a certain point then those behaviors become neutral and warranted to the child.
Its just an inbuilt tick we have because were capable of rationalizing what we don't understand, instead of ignoring it.
Which is why being bisexual or gay can sometimes be a tad confusing for the majority of people who are deathly uneducated on sexuality.
I see, yes. that explains the issue adequately, I considered sub concious instincts plus a moral impulse, but didn't consider the social dominance aspect throughoutly.
So ultimately the agression towards homosexual males is, as I thought, subconcious and counterproductive to its intent, asserting dominance in males of course serving to advance survival of ones genes,so its basically another 'misfiering of genes', like our reciprocal altruism misfiering on strangers you'll never meet again.
That's actually a very good comparison, the social altruism misfiring. Same principle with homophobia. Our brains are still wired, almost entirely through our lives, to react to other people as if we were living in a social group of less than 150 to 300 people. It is very hard, even for an adult, to break free of that.
Interesting, yes, as you seem knowledgeable on the topic, reading suggestions on the breaking out? I feel that while some things like altruism are quite useful, others, like homophobia, not so much. Hard means not impossible and the brain can be trained to avoid flaws, just as many liberals are conditioned to accept gay equal rights, just that I feel as if replacing a negative with a positive condition is not fixing the real problem, as studies that prove Liberals -less- tolerant towards whites then to blacks LGBT and whatnot prove.
Its not, no. Its very easy. Its a re-enforced behavior. Homophobia is much like any other negative behavior that's been projected and allowed to continue in a youth. Its always learned, homophobia isn't something that is found in nature outside of human social construction. Homosexual behavior is, though. That's very common in almost all of the most intellectual species on this planet.
Its just re-enforced due to ignorance. Homophobia goes hand in hand with lack of education.
All people have to do is educate themselves on how sexuality works and they'll start to break free of the irrationality.
I can see what you mean by being bi or gay can be a tad confusing for majority of people who are deathly uneducated on sexuality, but even so it's still confused even if you understand it. For one thing, you have to learn about all the variations and semantic issues and the problems of every theories out there. It gets complicated when you try to rationalize every single one of those sexuality especially when we are theoretically advanced enough to look past our attraction to make our decisions and we are capable of making decisions based on reasons+logics alone, but I won't be going there. Well, I hope you get what I'm saying.
The rest, I understand you. Asides, social dominance has this little advantage of having some power over others. That's why a lot of people do not care about the minority unless they have some power, but even so...
First, you have these basic sexual orientation labels- pan/omni sexual, bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual, and asexual.
Then you have things like multisexual, fluid sexuality, pomosexuality and so on.
Then, you have the variations of bisexuality, heterosexuality, homosexuality, and asexuality.
Then, you have different criterias for each variations of the Xsexuality.
Then, you have people who actually are capable of going against their own sexual orientation for other reasons. This is where the label Xflexible comes in. There are two types of homoflexible, one type is the bisexual type, and the other type is a homosexual who don't mind the stimulation of heterosexual activities(you can enjoy an activity without being attracted like enjoying to masturbate with a sexual device) and/or does it for emotional reasons (emotional attraction is different than sexual attraction) and/or always open for experimentation.
There are different theories to why people are what they are and some theories forbid different variations while allowing other variations.
Eh, sure you might not need to know the details indepth to know the things, but it'd help yourself avoid assumptions. Girls that likes girls equal to lesbian does not seem to discriminate between romantic, platonic, and sexual feelings. And then you got girls that likes guys does not seem to discriminate between romantic, platonic, sexual and hell even reproductive feelings (Yes, you can feel the urges to reproduce without wanting to have sex with that gender and yet can't help it. ). Am I missing something?
Is that fluid sexuality you're talking about? Yes, fluid sexuality could fit the sliding scale though it's generally defined as changes which leads into moderate degree of shift in the average sliding scale over a period of time. As far as masculine and feminine traits, what does that have to do with sexuality? As for gender, I'm not going to go there as I reject the gender hypothesis because there isn't any strong case for the mental gender and from what I seen, some can explained hormones may be able to produce the subjective feelings of masculinity and femininity similar to how drugs alters one's perception of themselves and/or some can be explained by neuro-plasticity and so on other than the mundane hypothesis of a gender. I have yet to see a compelling case for gender.
I think it has alot to do with religious taboo, personally. Many of the peoples who came over a settled in Canada and the US were religious and followed the Bible (catholic, Mormon, Christian, and so on), so many of their laws and social beliefs were centered around religion and the Bible and it's gone from there. Because it became 'the norm', it's even effected non-religious folks over the years just because that dogma's always been there.
This is just my personal viewpoint and opinion and by no means THE reason why it happens, this is just what I think after a past researching religion and the effects of its dogma on modern society for university. A thesis, I suppose.
Sexism and hate towards women or feminine - traits play a big role on why most people hate or dislike homosexuality.
Like someone mentioned before if girls want to play or watch Sonic the Hedgehog or Transformers ( two franchises that focuses on young boys as their main target) people will not complain about it or sometimes even encourage it or find it cool.
But if a boy wants to watch My Little Pony or Barbie you will have people that will call it child abuse disgusting and even people like Dr Phill would blame the parents onto why the child would be bullied because its kind of justified. (yes he did imply that once in a show ).