Preface: The Christian spouting-off the greatest degree of hatred against homosexuals who

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Preface: The Christian spouting-off the greatest degree of hatred against homosexuals who is then caught in the act has become cliche in American society. The Christian priesthood being the "profession" which harbors the highest incidents of homosexual child rape has been the accurate stereotype for decades (review "The Sins of the Fathers," from your local Public Broadcasting Station.) Now comes the latest clinical review of claimed behavior vs. physiological response in regards to homosexuality -- another case in a long list of such cases. The conclusions of all such cases are consistent: The homophobic bigots who rants the loudest are those who are themselves harboring feelings of homosexuality -- and doing their best to deny it. But are those conclusions accurate? The chairman of The Skeptic Tank must point out that these tests are and will remain inconclusive so far as what such studies are designed to measure (that is, how one relates to homosexuals in regards to how one exhibits arousal behavior when subjected to visual stimulus of a homosexual nature.) The penile arousal which homophobics exhibit when exposed to video and photos of homosexuals exhibiting sexual behavior does _not_ always mean that the homophobic is himself always homosexual -- it merely shows a very good _probability_ of same. Alternative possibilities are undeniable: Homophobics subjected to visual displays of what they have been conditioned to hate can cause increase in blood pressure (and thus heart rate.) Additionally there is _always_ a degree of physiological response associated with viewing naked people -- it's hardwired into human biology through humanity's evolutional ancestry -- so it's the _degree_ of arousal that's what's important, not the _fact_ of the arousal. What remains for a medical doctor to answer is whether emotional arousal of hatred in a test subject directly translates to penile proto-erection -- something I am not equipped to answer. If the answer is, "it doesn't," then the conclusions seem to have been accurate. If it does, the tests remain inconclusive. Another possibility that needs to be explored pertains to desensitization of homoerotic materials. The results of such tests could indicate that those who are comfortable about sexuality in general exhibit the least amount of physiological response when exposed to such materials. Those who are comfortable about their sexuality may actively review sexual materials or not recoil in horror when inadvertently exposed to sexual materials, resulting in a desensitization of uncontrollable physiological responses. In contrast, those who are violently homophobic may simply be uncomfortable with their own sexuality in general rather than homosexuality in the specific and the degree of arousal these tests indicate may be due to a lack of a history of desensitizing experiences with sexual materials. It is my opinion that no conclusion can be reached from the results of such tests unless many more control groups can be called into the equation. 1) Individuals broken into groups arranged by the amount of sexual materials they have viewed in the past should be added to such tests to help factor the results. 2) The heart rates and respiration of test individuals should also be plotted to determine if hate and disgust are a factor in penile turgidity. If heart rate and respiration are incapable of indicating rise in emotional hatred and disgust, another test should be made to solve for them. 3) Additionally, a test group consisting entirely of homosexual men should be factored into all tests. 4) A group of men who review pictures of fully-clothed men engaged in sexual behavior should be included in the tests. 5) A group of men who review pictures of fully-clothed men NOT engaged in sexual behavior should be included in the tests. 6) A group of men who review pictures of fully-clothed WOMEN engaged in sexual behavior should be included in the tests. 7) A group of men who review pictures of fully-clothed WOMEN NOT engaged in sexual behavior should be included in the tests. 8) A test group shown heterosexual sexual behavior should be included or, even better, an entire suit of tests conducted for the heterosexual arena should be conducted and the results compared against the results of the homosexual arena suit of tests. Such a broad suit of groups would tell us a great deal more about how well penile physiological responses relate to visual stimulus and what individuals are biologically predisposed toward. ~*~ Dr. Edell, by the way, is _highly_ regarded for no-nonsense medical advice and his dedication toward exposing health quackery while exposing a little sanity. I've been able to listen to his talk show for years and he keeps up on clinical reviews and medical journals from institutions and organizations around the world, boiling down the conclusions into layman speech for his show. - Fredric L. Rice (128) Sat 21 Dec 96 14:49 Ed Mills Mentions: Today, on the Dr. Dean Edell radio show, I heard something that supports a suspicion I've had for years. It's old hat, the idea that homophobia is a manifestation of repressed homosexuality. Everyone's heard the postulate, but today, some very telling evidence came to light at the University of Georgia. A group of professed heterosexual men was queried as to their feelings about homosexuality. They were then connected to a "penile turgidity" measuring instrument - some kind of micrometer connected to a computer. They were then made to view gay porn videos while the instrument monitored their schwantzes for "turgidity." Guess who got the substantial majority of the hardons during the test? The men who professed revulsion for homosexuality, of course! Rod Swift comments: Those tests were reproduced this week. Heterosexual college-aged males were classified by reactions to questions -- whether they had a dislike for gays, whether they wanted to imprison gays, or have them exterminated, or whether they were ok with gay people, or supported equality for gay people. They were also asked to answer questions about their reaction to gays propositioning them -- violent or not. They were divided into two groups -- gay-neutral or supportive, and condemnatory or violently hostile. All were subjected to video screenings of gay sexual scenes. Of the neutral or supportive group, 34% of the subjects had an erectile response to the homosexual videos. Of the violent or hostile group, 80% of the men had erectile response. This has further expanded the theory that the people with *violent* hatred or condemnation of gay people or homosexuality do so out of fear that they could possibly be gay. Rod "... interesting result, no?" Swift --- Maximus 2.02 * Origin: Perth Omen BBS -- FASTER LIVE InterNet (+619) 244 2111 (3:690/660)

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank