Is revulsion at homosexuality in any way "natural"?

[Avita]

I've been having this argument with my mother. She states that, although she fully acknowledges that homosexuals are fine people, she is absolutely revolted at the thought of them even kissing, much less having sex, where she is not revolted at the thought of a man and woman kissing/having sex. Furthermore, she claims that this is a wholly physiological response on her part. In other words, she seems to think that there's something about seeing two people of the same gender together that is naturally offputting.

I disagree, because I have never noticed myself having any kind of revulsion feelings in the above scenarios. However - I do remember that I had a harder time getting used to the thought of female/female sexuality (mind shying away from the thought, for example), than male/male. It was never to the point of revulsion, but it took me a longer time to get used to the thought, and some exposure to reading lesbian fiction.

From personal experience and hearsay (read, very anecdotal evidence), it seems that many heterosexual women find gay men in some ways easier to think about and "tolerate" than lesbians, where heterosexual men are the reverse (they find lesbians easier to tolerate). I have heard several explanations for this effect, but I am not sure whether this has ever been studied.

I am curious to know whether the initial "revulsion" feeling has been studied. Is it truly something biological? Or do some people mistake feelings similar to mine (i.e., "I don't want to be thinking about that kind of stuff") as meaning that they are revolted, and never challenge themselves to find out differently? Or something else? And what could be the difference between people who get revolted at both gay and lesbian sexuality, just one, or perhaps none? Or do we just not know yet?

Any answers and/or reading suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[Dogdoctor]

I am not aware of studies but here's my thoughts. Probably some of what we see as peoples attitudes about homosexuals is societal mores and norms. In my opinion it is likely the biggest factor. Fear of the unknown and doubt of ones own sexuality plays into that. I also would be interested in looking at studies on that topic.

[Serenity]

I would expect social conditioning to play a strong role. I can recall lots of gay bashing in my youth where one learned to quickly rebuff such accusations for fear of it sticking.

[Hagrok]

I guess a good counter question to that argument would be, do homosexuals experience revulsion at the thought of hetero sex?

My guess would be no, but I really have nothing to base that on.

If not, then that would probably rule out physiology.

[Silly Green Monkey]

It's probably all with familiarity. The only images of kissing in the media is male-female, barring pride events and porn. Most of the people kissing in public are male-female. Couple that with a cultural injuction against males showing any kind of affection to each other, and there you have it.

[a_unique_person]

I'm happy that gays are happy with each other, but the thought of it is not appealing at all to me personally. That's just how nature makes sure I get out there and breed with the right sex, and we continue the species. As for what gays think of hetero sex, I guess that if they found it attractive, they would be doing that instead.

[TV's Frank]

For the record:

I am not revolted at the thought of two attractive females kissing.

[empeake]

I'm male and hetereosexual. Male homosexual sex is unappealing to me. What does make it revolting is thinking that I could be having sex with someone like myself. :D

On the serious side, and as Hagrock mentioned, it would be interesting to know how homosexuals (both male and female) view heterosexual physical interaction.

As for the aversion, it could be purely based on social conditioning (as a result of a very strict religious upbringing, some heterosexuals are revolted even by male-female sex), just be a matter of taste (one man's fantasy can be another's nightmare), or even be the response of a biological instinct (same gender sex = no reproduction = not good). Just some thoughts.

[Antiquehunter]

As a homosexual male, I am not revolted by heterosexual sex. However, it is also not a 'turn-on' for me. IOW - I can watch 'Debbie does Dallas' for its cinematographic appeal, acting quality and costume design, but at no point do I feel aroused.

In Vancouver I am often chosen by my hetero friends to be the Designated Driver for stag nights etc... when they are going to hit all the stripper bars.

I tend to pass comments on the dancer's choice of footwear.

I am unaware of any studies undertaken one way or another. However, I believe that aversion therapy has been proven ineffective in 'curing' homosexuals - therefore I'd say that watching images of sexual activity of one flavour or another does not impact how one is actually 'wired' to behave. But in your mom's case just get her to watch more Will & Grace, Queer as Folk etc... and I'm sure she'll be 'cured'. (Just kidding...)

[athon]

'Revulsion' as a reaction has both natural and sociocultural roots, and depends on the situation. For example, it appears to be a biological reaction that we are revolted by the sight and smell of excrement, however certain foods which have the same sight-smell reaction as this vary depending on cultural heritage. It would be interesting to see how these same reactions would vary independent of cultural influence.

Behaviour is a large field of reactionary behaviour that appeals to an emotionally moralistic sense, or the old 'yuck' behaviour. Incest is one example, so too is homosexuality. It's likely that the attitude is due not to the behaviour itself, but rather attributes perceived to be displayed by social groups who exhibit the behaviour. Hence behaviour becomes a form of associating with social groups. If you grow up in a group where you are conditioned to associate certain behaviours (implicitly or explicitly) with negative feelings, you will feel revulsion.

Athon

[CriticalThanking]

I have no scientific data to back up the following, but...

My mind wandered to the extended question: is revulsion at anything in any way "natural?" If by natural you mean having an evolutionary advantage, then perhaps it could exist.

Some things might seem to have an advantage: revulsion at the smell of spoiled food or other things whose consumption would be harmful. Many (most?) humans are averse to the idea of incest. Other primates seem to follow the "rules" against incest even though the concept of "revulsion" may not be appropriate to assign. So now someone has to define revulsion. :rolleyes:

For homosexual "acts," whether holding hands, kissing, or sexual stimulation, the only advantage to avoiding such behavior that I can think of would be issues surrounding the inability to pass on genes as the result of sex. Certainly Dr. Laura feels that is reason enough to froth at the mouth. On the other hand, should nature (we?) feel revulsion at hetersexual couples getting together when we know there is no chance of genes being passed on, whether due to age or physical issues?

As others point out, different cultures have different standards or levels of acceptance toward homosexual expression. The only "constant" as I mentioned above appears to be the incest taboo.

I would venture to guess that a significant portion of the population would find thoughts of morbidly obese people canoodling to be disturbing. Yet there are groups to support the acceptance of the large person (NAFA?). While there is an evolutionary (health) disadvantage to being morbidly obese, actual cultural acceptance varies within and accross populations.

So my opinion (finally!) is that there could be a biological basis for human revulsion at witnessing expression of homosexual attraction, but if present it is likely swamped by cultural influences.

CT

[slingblade]

I have no scientific data to back up the following, but...

My mind wandered to the extended question: is revulsion at anything in any way "natural?" If by natural you mean having an evolutionary advantage, then perhaps it could exist.

Some things might seem to have an advantage: revulsion at the smell of spoiled food or other things whose consumption would be harmful. Many (most?) humans are averse to the idea of incest. Other primates seem to follow the "rules" against incest even though the concept of "revulsion" may not be appropriate to assign. So now someone has to define revulsion. :rolleyes:

I'd have to agree with your speculations, here. It would really take some study to find out what's learned and internalized, and what we'd "have" even if no one else was around to teach us differently.

Spoiled food...I think Lewis and Clark spoke of a particular Nation (Mandans?) who considered bloated, soft, green buffalo meat a delicacy.


So my opinion (finally!) is that there could be a biological basis for human revulsion at witnessing expression of homosexual attraction, but if present it is likely swamped by cultural influences.


I think I can agree. It's possible, wouldn't like to say it's impossible, but it's likely cultural/social to a great degree, if not totally. So, there's a good research question. :)

And several of my professors said incest was the only "universal" taboo they knew of.

[Yahzi]

Of course it is - it is as natural as sexual attraction. It can be influenced by culture or experience, and it isn't the same for everyone. You probably don't find your dad to be hot, but your mom does. :D

Also, I'm pretty sure toilet taboos are universal too. :D

[Morrigan]

And several of my professors said incest was the only "universal" taboo they knew of.
What about all those ancient monarchs marrying their sisters and brothers?
I would think adults having sex with prepubescent children to be a more universal taboo... at least, I hope so.

[Dogdoctor]

There is an aesthetics issue present here also. To me the most beautiful thing in the world is a nude woman. A nude man however I find very aesthetically unpleasing. So two nude men is two times unappealing whereas two nude women would be two times appealing however if they are making out it is not as appealing.

[Dogdoctor]

Concerning humans and instincts; Humans apparently don't have the completely controlling inherited behaviors like other species have. Humans have the ability to choose to behave in ways that normally we would not if in our judgment it is desirable to behave that way. Behaviors which probably represent instincts in humans are aversions to cannibalism and incest and maybe fear of heights.
eta there are likely others too and maybe something about the homophobia issue might be inherited but it is so hard to document a human instinct without a better understanding of them.

[tkingdoll]

Disclaimer: sorry for the adult content of this post.

I know lots of men who would claim to be repulsed (or at least, not aroused) by homosexual pornography, yet take plenty of pleasure in watching 'straight' porn in which a woman is double or triple penetrated (or even DVDA..yowzer!). When queried about this apparent inconsistency, they don't agree that watching two penises rubbing against each other is the same as watching gay porn.

So, I would say being revolted at the thought of gay sex is a matter of context, and what gay sex is can be a matter of interpretation. Therefore, the revulsion is a social response not a biological one.

[Darat]

tk - I said something similar in thread were this came up before and raised its ugly head.... ;)

It's gonna take a lot to convince me that there's any such thing as male bisexuality. As a heterosexual man, if I look at heterosexual porn, I can't imagine how any guy could be attracted to both sexes.

I also can't accept the theory that everybody is a little bit gay. I'm not in the least bit gay. I get the same reaction seeing a gay sex act as I would if I accidentally walked in on my parents having sex.

Heterosexual porn - you mean porn where you see males engaged in sex? Where it is full of (so to speak) sexually aroused males etc.... but you don't find that a turn-off, therefore on one level at least it can be said that males engaging in sex is not necessarily a "turn off" for you.

I think you can therefore argue that heterosexual porn (of the male/female kind) is evidence that most straight men are not in fact "turned off" by other men engaged in sex so it is not the thought or even the images of men having sex that is a problem for most heterosexual men, it is perhaps more the context of that male arousal.

Indeed to go even further the fact that apparently most straight men will engage in group sex (excluding all forms of non-consensual sex, I believe the behaviour is then predominately violent rather then sexually motivated) either as masturbation or say many men to one or few women again indicates that many heterosexual men are not turned off by other men.

Of course all of that does not mean many heterosexual men are sexually attracted to other men however it does provide evidence to challenge the often stated "Two men? That's disgusting!" as being nothing more then "I'm a real man" bravado for many hetrosexual men.

(ETA: Polaris - This reads as if it is aimed specifically at you, it isn't; your comments just sparked a train of thought.)

[CriticalThanking]

What about all those ancient monarchs marrying their sisters and brothers?Is there research anywhere about the number of monarchs who "boinked kin" vs incest in the general population? I'm not even sure how you could approximate historical numbers - or even current numbers. "Why yes, I come from a long, proud line of inbreeding." Ed help me if that ever ends up in a sig.


I would think adults having sex with prepubescent children to be a more universal taboo... at least, I hope so.

That is probably accurate - NAMBLA be damned. I think the OP had to do with consensual acts, and I certainly don't want to to see that thread opened again.

CT

[tkingdoll]

tk - I said something similar in thread were this came up before and raised its ugly head.... ;)

Ha ha, that says a lot about the trains of thought you and I both have then.

Although I got 'DVDA' into my post :p

[Dogdoctor]

There isn't enough information to say if what may or may not be genetic. Why aren't we all homosexuals? Must be a reason. Anyway you can learn to like or dislike lots of stuff that doesn't say anything about genetics however overall it seems like our minds can override any genetic programing we may have.
ETA: I had to go look up DVDA wow! Hmmm.....I wonder about such and why you always seem to know so much. I am so linguisticly impared

[l0rca]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Middle_East_and_Central_Asia

Link discussing homosexuality's cultural acceptance in those areas. Followed by:

http://wwwsshe.murdoch.edu.au/intersections/issue3/mclelland2.html
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Berkeley/3508/japanesehistory.html
http://www.utopia-asia.com/unews/article_2006_06_4_105245.htm

It's a cultural thing, really. If we're going to talk about why them, I'd wager that more sexually-lax religions and philosophies, along with an overall eastern-dialectic approach to reason has a great deal to do with it.

[empeake]

I am so linguisticly impared
Sorry to jump in, but in this specific case shouldn't it be "linguistically impaled"?

[l0rca]

I've been having this argument with my mother. She states that, although she fully acknowledges that homosexuals are fine people, she is absolutely revolted at the thought of them even kissing, much less having sex, where she is not revolted at the thought of a man and woman kissing/having sex. Furthermore, she claims that this is a wholly physiological response on her part. In other words, she seems to think that there's something about seeing two people of the same gender together that is naturally offputting.

An angle that seems to be missing here is that of learned attitude. You can learn to find something repulsing down to your bones. And...

I disagree, because I have never noticed myself having any kind of revulsion feelings in the above scenarios. However - I do remember that I had a harder time getting used to the thought of female/female sexuality (mind shying away from the thought, for example), than male/male. It was never to the point of revulsion, but it took me a longer time to get used to the thought, and some exposure to reading lesbian fiction.

You can learn to accept things!

A nice example is that of death. People who've seen a lot of it have a chance to be fazed much less by it (or the other way around, if post-traumatic stress sets in).

[Yuri Nalyssus]

ETA: I had to go look up DVDA wow! Hmmm.....I wonder about such and why you always seem to know so much. I am so linguisticly impared
Yes, the latest innovations in audio/visual technology (http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm)fascinate me too.

DVD-A does absolutely offer a much higher dynamic range than CD, but it is very questionable if SACD does Now if I could only work out what SACD meant...

Yuri

[Dogdoctor]

Sorry to jump in, but in this specific case shouldn't it be "linguistically impaled"?
OK impaled. But to further my education I must now go use google a bit to learn more about the topic.

[tkingdoll]

Yes, the latest innovations in audio/visual technology (http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm)fascinate me too.

Now if I could only work out what SACD meant...

Yuri

Boy, are you gonna be surprised looking for the 'eject' button...

[gnome]

I think it is natural to be uncomfortable (and possibly somewhat repelled) to images of homosexual behavior by the same gender, when one is heterosexual. Sexual behavior, when not accompanied by attraction, is somewhat grotesque. So it makes sense to me. It can be mild or so severe that it DOES extend into an unhealthy obsession with the behavior of others.

[Molinaro]

I would expect whatever aversion someone has to homosexual sex to be a result of the same kind of thing that leads some others to have an aversion to seeing overweight people having sex.

Some find it gross, some find it funny, some are indiferent, some will get aroused.

I think it's natural to expect that kind of variation in reactions to either situation -- homosexuality or overweight.

[Dcdrac]

i have noticed that people who condemn others lifestyles do ototally obsess about it to an extreme degree.

[empeake]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Middle_East_and_Central_Asia

Link discussing homosexuality's cultural acceptance in those areas. Followed by:

http://wwwsshe.murdoch.edu.au/intersections/issue3/mclelland2.html
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Berkeley/3508/japanesehistory.html
http://www.utopia-asia.com/unews/article_2006_06_4_105245.htm

It's a cultural thing, really. If we're going to talk about why them, I'd wager that more sexually-lax religions and philosophies, along with an overall eastern-dialectic approach to reason has a great deal to do with it.
From the information in the Wikipedia entry, it seems that homosexuality was relatively common in many geographic regions until Catholic/Christian influence put an end to it (pun intended). This would contradict the "instinctive" explanation for the repulsion and make it a very intense form of socio-religious conditioning, to the extreme of making it psychosomatic.

[Dogdoctor]

From the information in the Wikipedia entry, it seems that homosexuality was relatively common in many geographic regions until Catholic/Christian influence put an end to it (pun intended). This would contradict the "instinctive" explanation for the repulsion and make it a very intense form of socio-religious conditioning, to the extreme of making it psychosomatic.
It seems from all the information I have seen that a learned behavior is responsible for the majority of how we view homosexual behavior. However this in no way rules out a instinctive component since both may exist (not a mutually exclusive situation).

[empeake]

It seems from all the information I have seen that a learned behavior is responsible for the majority of how we view homosexual behavior. However this in no way rules out a instinctive component since both may exist (not a mutually exclusive situation).
I agree. Something else that comes to mind is that accepting or tolerating homosexuality activity is one thing, and being unattracted to or revolted by it is another. Example: kissing is an accepted form of behavior in our society, but some people are repulsed by the thought of exchanging saliva and sticking one's tongue into another mouth.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Boy, are you gonna be surprised looking for the 'eject' button...

:dl:

[Mr. Scott]

I suspect that revulsion to any kind of sex performed by people other than one's self is instinctive, and that we grow out of or get used to it. I've observed most children are disgusted by plain old sensual heterosexual kissing in movies and TV. They cover their eyes, moan, yell, and may even have to leave the room. When puberty triggers sexual interest, they learn to tolerate watching what is in accord with their own sexual preference, but what is not continues to disgust them or, at best, they become desensitized and learn to "tolerate" it.

In short, my working hypothesis is that erotophobia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotophobia) is an instinctive, inborn, "proximate mechanism." Its probable sociobiological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology) goal is to inhibit the creation of competitive siblings. Note that many people seem to have an instinctive response to seeing people making love in public to try and stop it ("get a room!").

[Beady]

Sagan and Druyan, somewhere in the early parts of "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," go into homosexual activity in ape/monkey populations in zoos. There's always some level of activity, and it increases or decreases in direct proportion to the population density (not the population, but the density, just to be clear). Since all females are available to all males, the gender ratio wouldn't seem to have anything to do with it and it is therefore the density, itself, which drives the amount of activity.

It's hard not to interpret this behavior as a reaction to overcrowding. If this is, in fact, what it is, then homosexuality can be seen as having survival value for the species, and it therefore serves an evolutionary purpose. Since it occurs without reference to humans, it can be seen as occurring in nature, and is therefore a "natural," not an acquired, behavior.

If homosexuality is, as it would appear, both natural and beneficial to the group, then individual revulsion at the act is both unnatural and illogical.

Having said all that, I rather like that photograph of two girls in their underwear kissing (the title is "Kiss," by Tanya Chalkin - do a Google), but would probably turn nauseous at a similar poster of two men.

[gumboot]

This is again personal experience...

I have a heap of gay friends - male and female, and are a heterosexual male myself. We have often discussed such subjects.

I wouldn't use the term "revulsion", but the idea of two males having sex does have a certain... I suppose... turn-off? Distasteful? Even that may be too strong a word. I equate it to imagining my parents having sex.

And many (not all) of my gay friends seem to express similar minor discomfort with the idea of heterosexual relations (though they usually point out that mainstream media has somewhat conditioned them to accept it).

Based on my own little slice of reality, that suggests to me that it is a combination of "nature and nurture", if you will. While there may be a natural aversion to sexual relations other than what you are naturally attracted to, a stronger feeling of revulsion may be a social factor in addition to the natural feeling.

I would also be quite interested in such a study. I suspect it would be very un-PC and getting honest results would be tricky.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Having said all that, I rather like that photograph of two girls in their underwear kissing (the title is "Kiss," by Tanya Chalkin - do a Google), but would probably turn nauseous at a similar poster of two men.


Now that I have seen it I thoroughly agree with you... :D

-Andrew

[Eos of the Eons]

I feel it is natural to fear something you don't understand, and be repulsed by something that has been equated to pedophelia for many years in the form of accusations, films, etc.

http://www.archive.org/stream/boys_beware/boys_beware_256kb.mp4

http://www.archive.org/details/boys_beware

The older generation was taught that homosexuality was EVIL. Equating it to the one type of attraction (adult to child) that does make one party a victim was a very effective way to villify homosexuality, expecially when it comes to males.

I don't view homosexual sex as revolting simply because I understand the physiology of attraction, and understand what others find attractive isn't always the same as what I find attractive. As long as there are two consenting adult parties, then I don't find it unnatural at all.

[empeake]

A friend of mine once said:

First, homosexuality was persecuted.
Later, it was ignored.
Then, it was tolerated.
Later, it was, accepted.
Now, it is promoted.
I'm getting the hell out before it becomes mandatory.

[Avita]

Thanks to everybody for all the responses - lots to think about, even if those studies still haven't shown up. To clarify, I am not talking about not wanting homosexual sex, or not being aroused by it, or even being uncomfortable with the idea of it - it seems obvious that if you are wired a particular way, other ways won't appeal to you as much. I am talking specifically about a sensation of disgust/physical revulsion.

I am intrigued by the possibility that if there were more exposure to homosexuality (and in particular, to the kind where there are no cultural taboos against it), then people wouldn't get "revolted" by the thought. However, my mother argues against exposing herself to homosexual behavior for precisely the reason that she believes it will always cause her to feel revolted, which creates all sorts of ethical arguments against forcing her to have such exposure. Antiquehunter noted that aversion therapy doesn't work on changing the preferred sexual orientation - but the circumstancial evidence in this thread seems to imply that it can change attitude towards less preferred orientations (and I remember a talk by a prison psychologist which showed pretty clearly that people get aroused by all sorts of things besides their primary preferences).

And I may be completely wrong about this, but from somewhere, I seem to remember that it's been proven that evolution simply selects for "more sex" - that it makes no sense, evolutionarily speaking, to select for particular sexual acts, because so long as they ever include the possibility of impregnation, it really doesn't matter, and the more sex you have, the greater the likelihood that at least one of the acts will fit the bill. Furthermore, the reason why no taboo is absolutely universal is because in some very extreme circumstances, it might be the only way for evolution to go on (e.g., a single family survives the Apocalypse). Therefore, we get relatively small numbers of people in the general population who don't mind breaking the taboo even when it's not absolutely necessary - evolution might require their genes to be carried on down the road. Again, I would appreciate if someone with more knowledge corrected me.

And a question for Mr. Scott - the erotophobia link is very intriguing, but what do you mean by "Its probable sociobiological goal is to inhibit the creation of competitive siblings"?

[fuelair]

Disclaimer: sorry for the adult content of this post.

I know lots of men who would claim to be repulsed (or at least, not aroused) by homosexual pornography, yet take plenty of pleasure in watching 'straight' porn in which a woman is double or triple penetrated (or even DVDA..yowzer!). When queried about this apparent inconsistency, they don't agree that watching two penises rubbing against each other is the same as watching gay porn.



On the other hand, it was reported that when that occurred on set in Devil In Miss Jones one of the men involved threw up over it. My personal suspicion on the base topic is that any feeling is person specific based on untraceable background, genetics, remembered experiences, etc. I.e. it is unique to the individual. By the by, when I was in college and army I found an off version of that for determining who was a closet racist.

[Dogdoctor]

Avita,
Perhaps you need to use different phrasing since evolution doesn't do anything. Evolution at least as far as I can see is an effect due to often unknown forces.

[Dogdoctor]

In addition I am sure you could condition yourself to get used to homosexuality or anything else if you really wanted too.

[Polaris]

tk - I said something similar in thread were this came up before and raised its ugly head.... ;)

It was that thread that made me think twice before pitching my two cents in this one. But I am still repulsed by seeing any gay men displaying affection, beyond holding hands, and even that kinda sets off the "ugh" factor. I think the "walking in on my parents" comparison might be a bit excessive. It's more like the cringe I get when I hear a really bad joke.

This isn't a judgement call, I think we should do what makes us happy. But as a heterosexual male, I think my opinion is called for here. And it certainly feels like a physical reaction when I see it. In a broader perspective, I should add, I'm not all that interested in other peoples' sex lives, gay or straight, unless I see them as potential sexual partners. I think that most men are like that - we generally don't go into detail.

"You know that redhead? I hit that."
"Awesome. Who's up to bat?"

[tkingdoll]

On the other hand, it was reported that when that occurred on set in Devil In Miss Jones one of the men involved threw up over it. My personal suspicion on the base topic is that any feeling is person specific based on untraceable background, genetics, remembered experiences, etc. I.e. it is unique to the individual. By the by, when I was in college and army I found an off version of that for determining who was a closet racist.

Hmm. I don't actually recall that particular scene, but I have the DVD so can easily check. There were 5 or 6 sequels, it could have been one of those I suppose.

I'm interesting in your comments about determining who is a closet racist, can you expand on that? (and also define what you mean by 'racist' in that context?). Ta.

[fuelair]

[QUOTE=tkingdoll;1740929]Hmm. I don't actually recall that particular scene, but I have the DVD so can easily check. There were 5 or 6 sequels, it could have been one of those I suppose.

I'm interesting in your comments about determining who is a closet racist, can you expand on that? (and also define what you mean by 'racist' in that context?). Ta.[/QUOTE

It may have just been a DP but the under gentleman was supposedly the one who barfed - and it definitely was the first film. As politely as I can (and not exact phrasing : Person says not racist. Great ,say I, so you wouldn't be bothered if you saw (a black male) having sex with a white girl you know. No, he replies, that's fine with me!. How about, says I, if she is giving him (oral pleasure). Usual response: "Uhhhhhh, I don't know." And if she was doing that with a white guy. "That's ok" Then you're a racist. (there was of course one last extension if the answer to second was "No problem!" and I'm sure it doesn't need spelling out.). Worked great, started a lot of thinking. And I am not one so.....

[Mr. Scott]

And a question for Mr. Scott - the erotophobia link is very intriguing, but what do you mean by "Its probable sociobiological goal is to inhibit the creation of competitive siblings"?

The resources parents have to raise children are limited, so the fewer offspring they have, the more resources are availabe to those offspring. If a mother has one child and can gather one pound of food per day for that child, then that mother, after having a second child, has only a half pound a day for the formerly only child. His ration is cut in half. It is in a first born's interest to remain an only child. One of its strategies would be to interfere with its parents sexual activity and attempt to prevent conception of the competing sibling. In evolutionary terms, children with a gene that causes them to be disgusted by displays of adult sexuality can result in lowered likelihood of the conception of a younger brother or sister that would compete for food and other care from one or both parents. Revulsion at gay sex is a side effect of this impulse.

Also in any community of humans it makes sense that while one would be happy to have as many of their own children as they can, they would seek to interfere with others having children and thusly inhibit competition for limited resources. This tendency of adults to want to interfere with other couples conceiving is manifested by the revulsion many (most?) adults feel for public displays of affection and outright sexual union which we are most likely to label blandly as "inappropriate behavior." Why inappropritate? Why the gut reation? I think it's in the genes. I have no scientific data to back this up.

[The Kilted Yaksman]

For the record:

I am not revolted at the thought of two attractive females kissing.
Who could possibly be revolted by something so natural and beautiful? :drool:

[chulbert]

Off the cuff, I'd say that since most forms of affection - kissing, hugging, etc - are themselves learned behaviors, that revulsion toward homosexuals performing them must also be a learned behavior.

[Moochie]

Did concepts of homosexuality, incest, and pedophilia exist in primordial folk?

Just wondering.

M.

[kittykatkarma]

Off the cuff, I'd say that since most forms of affection - kissing, hugging, etc - are themselves learned behaviors, that revulsion toward homosexuals performing them must also be a learned behavior.

Good point. In the United States, for the most part, it is not common practice for adult heterosexual males to kiss each other as a greeting; where in Europe / European countries it is more common.

[Avita]

To Dogdoctor - yes, you're right about my needing to rephrase. Not sure how I'd rephrase the "evolution selects" bit, without going into long explanations about how there are blind selection forces operating, but that they don't necessarily operate on all behavior all the time. I hope that people get what I mean, regardless - if not, I'll do my best to explain.

For anybody in this thread who does feel that revulsion for whatever reason - could you tell us more about the limits of it (i.e., whether it's for all sexual activity or not, whether you'd be more okay with it if you knew that they were heterosexual and only kissing each other in greeting, etc.)?

Still intrigued by the erotophobia stuff, but I highly doubt that their children's disapproval could prevent adults from having sex. The reason being, for most of humanity's history, privacy was incredibly hard to come by (all the family living in a one-room hut, for instance). What people usually did was to wait until most everyone was asleep, and do the deed under covers. I've read several statements from children raised in such conditions that they could sometimes hear odd noises at night, but did not know to associate those noises with sex until sometime later in life. I don't know what other adults living in the same hut thought, but I bet that they did not feel as free as we do to demand that the couple "get a room."

Moochie - the behaviors you list all existed, and we have historical records of same as far back as we can go. The attitudes towards and therefore the conceptualizations of such behavior differed from culture to culture.

[Dogdoctor]

I am a heterosexual male and I feel strong adverse feelings looking at male homosexuals engaged in sex. Some what less strong feelings if they are kissing and less than that to just male nudity. I guess it is from years of insecurity with my own sexuality and now that I am no longer insecure about it, the behavior pattern is set and I have little reason to try to change it. I don't often see any of the above nor do I want to. I have some aversion to watching heterosexual encounters as well, my guess, partially due to male nudity and partially due to my upbringing that sex is not to be discussed much less seen. However at the same time while I feel an aversion there is also a curiosity about techniques and if the people are enjoying whatever. It may also raise my sexual desires a little or maybe not. I used to like watching just because it was naughty but no longer feel that way. My feelings about female homosexual encounters is probably similar to heterosexual encounters without the male nudity. As far as kissing in greeting I just saw that on TV and it is a little disturbing also even with heterosexual males kissing in greeting. However I have no problem if anyone of any sexual preference wants to kiss in public. I can certainly not watch easily enough.