Are homophobes themselves more likely to be attracted to men than others? A study led by an Israeli researcher reveals this
Ted Haggard was a well-known evangelical preacher for over twenty years, who swept away tens of thousands of devout believers. In 2006, he called on his followers to support laws that would ban gays from marrying in Colorado - and that's where his career came to a bitter end. Haggard himself was involved in a sexual relationship with another man at the same time, and his lover decided to expose their relationship following the preacher's hypocrisy. The homophobe turned out to be homosexual himself.
This is not as unusual a story as it seems at first glance. Various figures throughout history who spoke strongly against the phenomenon of homosexuality were caught engaging in sex with other men later in their careers. This is also the case with Glenn Murphy Jr., a politician who spoke out strongly against homosexual marriage, but in 2007 was accused of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old man. Of course, even in the Holy Land there are no shortage of cases of Orthodox rabbis sexually exploiting young men and boys under their protection. In the last two years, we became aware of the case of Rabbi Ram Ma'ale, especially in the religious-nationalist public, who was allegedly involved in a relationship with a number of young men under his supervision.
Are the homophobes - people who abhor homosexuality and vilify homosexuals in every corner - might themselves be attracted to men, more than others? This phenomenon corresponds to a well-known psychoanalytic principle which explains that we often suppress our unconscious impulses, which we see as dark and dark, by adopting a radically different point of view. But what is the evidence on the ground? Well, new research reveals that the answer may be yes, and that some cases of homophobia - fear and hatred directed towards homosexuals - may reflect a hidden longing of the homophobe for other men.
In the study, which will be published in April in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, four separate experiments conducted in the United States and Germany are documented. An average of 160 students participated in each study. The researchers examined the discrepancy between the participants' self-reports about their sexual preferences, and between the way they responded in a split second during a timed task that was supposed to distinguish their sexual tendencies, and another, more relaxed task in which the subjects were allowed to look at pictures of the same or another sex.
The participants in the study also went through a series of questionnaires, during which they were asked how their parents chose to raise them: whether in an authoritative and domineering manner, or democratically. The students were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with statements such as: "I felt that I was being controlled and pushed in certain ways", and "I felt free to be who I am". The students also indicated the degree of homophobia in their homes, by marking appropriate sentences such as "My father avoids homosexual men at every opportunity".
These and other tests yielded similar results: participants who enjoyed open and accepting parents were more connected to their sexual tendencies, while participants from authoritarian homes suffered the greatest contrast between stated sexual attraction and actual sexual urges.
The researchers explain this phenomenon by the fact that children of authoritarian parents know that they risk losing their parents' love and respect if they admit that they are attracted to people of the same sex. For this reason, they choose to deny or repress this side of themselves. There is nothing wrong with that, necessarily, if it weren't for the fact that studies show that these people are the most likely to react with hostility to declared homosexuals. The contrast between the internal drive and the external statement produced a wide range of homophobic behaviors, including hostility, support for anti-gay policies, and harsher punishments for homosexuals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSlQkWqD3k
The findings provide new empirical evidence supporting the psychoanalytic theory that the fear, apprehension and reluctance that some heterosexual people feel towards homosexuals and lesbians can grow out of their repressed urges for homosexual sex.
Is every Orthodox rabbi also homosexual in his inner soul, which he hides even from himself? It is hard to believe that this is the case. Humans manage to find reasons to hate and fear each other even without these having to be rooted in their subconscious. Beyond that, from the moment when a supreme factor like the Almighty commands to come out against a male sex, even the most straight Jews will side with the Holy One, blessed be He. However, the current research teaches us that it is possible that precisely those who come out most harshly against homosexuals and even call for the use of violence against them above and beyond the requirements of the job, are themselves attracted to members of the same sex. Media coverage of hate crimes against homosexuals reveals that often the attackers see homosexuals as a certain threat. Those people, who are in constant denial about their sexual preferences, may erupt in violence precisely because they see homosexuals as a real threat to their choices in life.
There is an important lesson here about the origins of extremism in humans, which deserves to be remembered and learned by children of all ages.
The main research editor is Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex. The co-author of the study is Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Essex.
34 תגובות
and "created"
Lucky that stupidity like you does not breed ....you are a horrible human being.
What "natural vocation" are you talking about?
It disgusts me to think that sperm will be poured into me.
It disgusts me to think about sperm at all.. and I'm a woman.
It disgusts me to think that women who want to be pregnant (luckily I don't), are ready to absorb your secretions.
This is neither his calling nor his place. It is true that this is the way in which descendants come into the world, but that does not mean that it is suitable for all of them. Ugh.
And straight women can also be disgusted by the male genitalia. Not just lesbians.
What are you confusing the brain? The seepage is cleaner from where he puts it? (from Huagena?)?
Did you fall for the brain?
A garden is much cleaner than seepage. There are many more bacteria in the vagina than in the vagina, in the mouth there are many, many more bacteria than in the vagina, on your hand there are many more bacteria than in the vagina (if it is a man's hand then twice as much).
The vulva is one of the cleanest and most self-cleaning organs there is.
For most women, it also smells wonderful and pure, unlike the man's organs. Although a third of women have unattractive genetics in this area as well, they are still a minority.
It's perfectly fine to be gay, but don't distort facts.
Bartolin, for example, is one of the cleanest and purest things, in contrast to the seed, for example, which is far from being "like water".
The ruling group (men) always wanted to protect rapists and thus actually protect themselves, because they knew they were rapists in essence. As we know, the tendency to rape exists at the evolutionary level.
And those men saw her as a trifle.
The stoning of the rapist is a defense of the rapist and the status of the male sex as a whole.
Countless women have been raped and kept silent throughout history for fear of being killed.
Jewish morality books, wrote that a woman is not allowed to complain or tell her family if her husband rapes, beats and tramples her. She must "receive the judgment of heaven" and expect a reward in the next world. To this day there are women who believe that rape is a punishment from above... and that's how the rapists grow stronger. This is how all criminals become socially stronger. More than that, lots of men are used to crying today that "women complain about every look", when in reality they don't even complain about the most horrific acts.
Even if here and there some "wise men" came and forbade rape, in practice the culture of rape continued as usual and traditionally women and girls were forbidden to complain.
The fact that there is a phenomenon of homophobic gays, does not mean that this is also true for other areas.
Let's say I'm disgusted by gays, does that mean I'm gay? Come on, get out of the movie.
And most of those who oppose prostitution are women who worked in prostitution and those who pass their horrifying story on (but certainly not to scumbags like you).
As an atheist I can't help but think what results a similar study would have yielded on possible internal repression of the fiercest opponents of religion or the biggest opponents of atheism...
Ernest,
I go further than you and hypothesize that the legislator who added to the rape ban a penalty for the rape victim also did it to protect himself. Moreover, knowing the Bible and the background to its writing, I can even point to the particular person who did it. I intend to publish my findings soon, but not here.
Chen, who exactly do you think I'm imitating?
Have you seen the movie "The Stoning"? It tells about a young woman in Iran, who was happily married until that bitter and hasty day when she was raped by a neighbor. It was clear to her that if she complained about him, the court would find her guilty of adultery and give her a horrible death while the rapist would get off clean.
The interpretation you propose for the verse gives the word "abomination" a very broad definition. An abomination, according to my definition, is any act that shocks the viewer. Abuse of the helpless, as in the act of rape, is an abomination. Mutual love is not abomination.
A link to an example of an abomination - to sew up an innocent:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kXTulGfnWKs
Chen and Yuval
Let's not forget that the same definitions, laws and rules were established by humans, which had in common:
1. Males
2. Having the ability to influence
3. Those with a national/religious/personal interest
simple.
Yuval Hayakin
What is the need to discourage the victim of Inos from complaining?
And it is not possible to interpret the verse you brought, as someone who prefers to sleep with a man than a woman, this is an abomination and both will be killed?
Yuval the imitator
What is the need to discourage the victim of Inos from complaining?
And it is not possible to interpret the verse you brought, as someone who prefers to sleep with a man than a woman, this is an abomination and both will be killed?
Paul did not marry a wife, and in his epistles he expresses himself against the service of women in the priesthood and against the love of men. The prohibition of erotic love between males also appears in the Koran. Assuming that Christianity and Islam took from Judaism, the roots of the prohibition must be sought in the Torah of Moses. Does anyone have any idea why the owner of the relevant episode there demands death for all those involved in love between men?
It seems to me that the prohibition from the beginning was not about a consensual act of love but about incest: "And a man shall not lie down with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus, 4:34). According to the Torah, the woman is humiliated. Although it is not mentioned there that it is permissible for a man to rape his legal wife, the Koran states this explicitly (for example, Sura XNUMX, verse XNUMX). The word "abomination" expresses an act that evokes a bad feeling among those who watch it. What abomination is there in an act of love if it is not done under compulsion?
In order to discourage the victim of Enos from complaining, the one who added the verse added the verse "And whoever lays the memory of the bed of an abominable woman, both of them have done an abomination, and his blood shall be put to death in it" (Leviticus, XNUMX:XNUMX). This method works well to this day in countries where Muslim law rules: women are afraid to complain about rape, because in their complaint they expose themselves to a cruel death.
I have a religious friend that I talked to about gays.
It upsets me so much to hear that he thinks that gays are purely a human choice.
Then no wonder they look at them as deviant people.
This is so wrong..
And all of this is simply due to covering one's ears, and referring only to writing.
I have no choice but to answer for myself.
This is because of the same factors I mentioned
decided to classify completely artificially
Between the natural and the natural and they are the ones who raised this issue
to the public agenda and so it remains.
.
Why does Roi Tsuna choose to raise this issue, alongside important scientific discoveries?
Sexual tendencies in nature are different and varied, however, many cultures as I understand,
And the majority of the religions have been trying for thousands of years, for some reason, to determine what is right and what is appropriate
Some normative feature or sometimes even some legal or natural one.
Most of us at one point or another in our lives fall into the same trap into the same trap that we laid for ourselves
the same religions and cultures, and we sometimes inadvertently treated this or that sexual orientation as inappropriate
Normative prison.
gay,
It is enough for me that I know the price I will have to pay for using heroin so that I can stay away from it without any remorse for never having tried it. The same is the case with sexual deviations. I am not saying that there are no hidden stimulation centers in the body. I do say that the price you pay to arouse them is unbearable, unless you deviate. I don't think that a person "from the village" will be able to tolerate himself after producing a meager moment of perverted pleasure at the cost of continuous disgust. Humans are not only a biological machine for producing pleasures, they are also human beings and their happiness is not conditioned by perverted instincts. Therefore, contrary to the picture you are trying to paint, the condition of the "ordinary people" is very good. On the one hand, they do not have obsessive urges to get thrills from sexual deviations, on the other hand, there is room in their lives for a satisfying sex life. A sane person is not in a hurry to drown in disgust for a questionable moment of carnal lust that is not according to nature.
Nabrava and Gay, I don't want to interrupt the debate, but take into account that the site is also read by children and censor excessive descriptions.
"He was created" do a favor even the religious among the religious deserves to enjoy events that include, as they say in your country, "spilling of semen in vain". Don't tell me that the only way you come to an outlet is through normal sex and in a bathroom where all the "male secretions are absorbed by the woman", have you never touched your sperm? Do not try to make false justifications. You are dealing with exactly the same disgust. And I didn't say that it was wrong, on the contrary, if you have really reached an outlet all your life only through missionary and boring lovemaking, then you are in a very bad situation. We can argue about biological designation for hours. It's a proven fact that a man has stimulation in the area (I'm sure you'll object, but until you've checked you have no say in the matter), so "biologically" the area is designed in exactly the same way for receiving sexual pleasures.
gay,
Definitely a perversion. In stark contrast to vaginal discharge, the cervix is not smeared with feces. Its biological purpose in the days when it is fixed is to absorb the male organ. The "disgusting" secretions of the female are mainly lubricants that the body produces and the "disgusting" secretions of the male are no longer disgusting if they reach their natural destination directly. Is it any wonder that those who prefer deviations are disgusted?
jubilee
Hence, it is important that jurists and legal professionals take steps to build a legal procedure for a preliminary charge...
Against all those who struggle with crime and violence (because so were their parents, unfortunately)
In turn, they will become violent and criminals,
It's surprising, we can act in advance against future crimes and violence, like in science fiction movies. Finally
See also what Ariel wrote.
The caption next to the photo is "Sons of Eilon", this is obviously a mistake, because the article is about his brother, Moti. Beware of defamation lawsuits (see, for example, Shimon Amsalem against a local newspaper, who sued them for using the headline "Amsalem is not alone" in an article about gay athletes, and he won the lawsuit).
Strong, Roy!
It is indeed science (recent research done), it is interesting, and what is more important - it is surprising.
Roy
If your article is defined or recognized, by the science managers/editors, as an article in the field of science, or in its spirit,
So anyone, can write here,
to the "embarrassed teacher". If you look at it every kind of sex includes nasty things in it. You decided that putting your name in the vagina is the purest thing in the world, and it's obviously not, and sperm isn't disgusting?! This is the most disgusting thing on earth! And this is without mentioning many other "deviations" by straight people as well. What's more, that "seepage" is much cleaner from where you put it, trust me it takes exactly 3 minutes to deal with the matter. And in short, sex is disgusting in all its forms, and we still all do it, I don't have to explain to you why. All for the momentary pleasure, that's how it works. And in fact, if you weren't so afraid of the definition and you were trying to get satisfaction through the "see-through" believe me you wouldn't have stopped, gay or not.
So maybe I don't exactly agree with the article either, but calling it a "perversion" is really no further than what you are doing to yourself.
According to the same logic I thought, if groups of people now start to maim animals and beasts, and in response to this other people, and public leaders in particular, start protesting and detesting it, then Roi Tsezana will come and claim that those protesting probably have sexual tendencies to maim animals and beasts.
There are endless ways in which thinking and common sense can be distorted.
With all due courtesy, this discovery seems to me nonsense. Obviously there are those who protect themselves from homosexuality through homophobia. What's that? It is understandable and clear. But do the majority of homophobes fall into this category? Just bullshit. How about just plain disgusting? Yes, disgusted with sexual relations that used to be considered a deviation, a perversion? Let's say, natural and human disgust that a male reaches sexual satisfaction inside his friend's vagina? How could it be that such a simple idea never occurred to you?
I'm not homophobic, but I think this argument is problematic to say the least. Are antisemites actually philosophies in disguise? Would they like to be Jews? no and no. Are racists actually attracted to other races? of course not. Not all hatred stems from some psychological complex of self-denial - humans hated and hate and do not need special reasons for this - it is enough that you are different or unusual in your lifestyle. And in the case of homosexuality - 2,000 years of homophobic monotheism in Western and Arab culture must be added so that looking at such sexual preference with a crooked nose is deeply rooted in this culture, just like anti-Semitism.
on the same weight or direction. Following a bill that recently came up in the Knesset.
Are all those who object to prostitution comprehensively instead of institutionalizing in terms of protection against pimps or proper health protection and of course payment of taxes and the rest. Are they actually the customers of the prostitutes or women who actually want to be prostitutes?
They hide under the terrible misery of women who were forced to engage in it but ignore women who chose to engage in it of their own free will. They also ignore men who are widowed, ugly, disabled or lacking social skills and more.
June,
Go and learn.
A homophobe is not the definition of a rabbi, see one of the rabbis who agree on a large population of religious people - Rabbi Yuval Sharlo, an orthodox rabbi but still very pluralistic, and very moderate and even very much tries to make things easier for religious gay people as much as possible according to the religion, and yet he is in the forum " Rule" which is a very strong forum and accepted by the majority of religious Zionists. An unrestrained attack on religious people or any other population while including many details, like racism, or like any gratuitous and ignorant statement.
According to the topic of the research/article, the answer is already invited. In law, this is called a guiding question, that is, the questioner already puts the answer in the subject question "the research/article" and this is exactly what the research is asking for. This is a biased, evil, racist "research" that reeks of "religious fear". To the same extent, you can ask "and investigate" innocently: "Is your mother this...".
A Jewish rabbi by definition is a homophobe and therefore the case of Moti Alon is appropriate
to Roy Cezana,
Why would you have to put the pictures of Rabbi Moti Alon, and mention him indirectly.
His rabbinical teaching was never homophobic, and he did not speak out against them.
Although I have not heard him speak publicly in favor of same-sex relationships, he was known among many people for his sympathetic attitude towards gays, and apparently in several cases he is accused of abusing his position.
It has nothing to do with the current article.
Hi Roy. As someone who is not homosexual but not only not homophobic but also anti-homophobic, and speaking from knowledge on the subject, I was of the opinion that it should not be generalized that all or even "the absolute majority" are like that. It can be assumed that many of them, or "half of them and slightly more than that" have a sexual inclination towards males, but how high the inclination itself is in each and every one of them, if at all, is already individual, and quantifying this is clearly problematic. Many blessings.