Confirmation of long held suspicions…

Is anyone surprised?

7 comments on “Confirmation of long held suspicions…

  1. The sad thing is, the ones that need most to acknowledge this are the ones least able to according to the study in question. They are homophobic, being able to acknowledge that they have even a scintilla of homosexual attraction is “threatening”.

  2. Very interesting video Ben. One of the conclusions that I find interesting is that people who are most likely to accept their own sexuality are the most accepting of others’.

  3. The data is interesting; the underlying mechanisms need to be explored much more fully, imho, before any emphatic prescription can be, or should be, drawn automatically from out that particular data.

    For example, it takes me under a nanosecond to (mis)use that same data to confirm the potential for ‘success’ of anti-gay conversion ‘therapy’ for overt, consciously-expressed behaviours by suitably rational persons, just as many Church-ish groups demand: ‘resist the sins of the flesh blah blah blah’.

    I’d like to know more about the origin(s) and function(s) of the ‘denial’ impulse, and precisely how and where it’s located before laying the issue to bed (pardon the pun), because the undertaking is predicated on knowing such things and addressing the impulse directly, if, and that’s one of the remaining unknowns from the piece, it’s even possible to address directly if and where and when it arises, and is not pre- or sub- or un-conscious per the individual or the collective.

  4. The more I think about the location and significance of tumescence from a biosemiotic perspective, the more my suspicions are confirmed that much more work needs to be done establishing precisely the physiological, neural, and cognitive-psychic information-processing pathways/circuitries involved, and underlying the apparent experimental data, before anything definite can be drawn from such an experimental outcome; drawing inferences, like the piece does, including the casual causal orderings of stimulus and response, may be drawing inaccurate ones in terms of the processes and processings; and the experimental conclusion is almost meaningless, to me, outside the preconceptions lent to it, without that additional work.

    In short: the experimental piece still doesn’t tell me ‘why’.

  5. Excellent; it’s not my imagination that the experimental conclusions (even within their psychoanalytic framework) require more work (aka further reaearch), as advocated by the study’s authors and per their bootstrapped psychoanalytic reservations…

    I’m working from an evolutionary biology/psychology/behaviourist perspective, and not a psychoanalytic, and would still want those study authors’ nominated reservations investigated (and, even then, investigated with a rigour which can differentiate sub-types within a self-selective homophobic test group, rather than averaging or homogenizing, if probing is being done), along with better gauges of precisely what is happening physiologically and neurally during those test events, other than a self-rated aggression questionnaire among persons ‘unaware or in denial’ (which could also be the total batch), or a Kinsey orientation test.

    Because, I do have suspicions not drawn from the psychoanalytic worldview; but those suspicions would involve questioning what ‘sex’ is, and the sexes and sexual orientations are, in evolutionary and behavioural contexts; and asking those kinds of questions may get quite ugly, or beautiful, depending on perspective; although, still be true within that alternate worldview.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s