Posts by Lisa Hernandez3

Brandon Rivera2 said:But what about the people who don't necessarily feel uncomfortable, yet still find themselves against gay rights?...

Perhaps they just aren't well-informed? And maybe—I guess—they might change their minds if, say, their own child were gay? Or perhaps they simply hold somewhat reactionary views when it comes to institutions like marriage, family, or parenthood?

The thing is, I think a non-homophobic person views homosexuality—as I mentioned earlier—as something fundamentally normal and human, which makes it acceptable and understandable. For instance, regarding the biological or genetic aspects of homosexuality—we might accept that it represents a departure from what is genetically "typical," but that wouldn't be a reason to be homophobic. We would treat it as information, a fact, or even an assumption, but we wouldn't use it to build resentment toward those individuals. Honestly, that extra layer of judgment is often what distinguishes a homophobe from someone who isn't. We essentially choose which facts—or research findings—we deem relevant, and we interpret them in certain ways; in doing so, one could develop a perspective that supports gay rights, or conversely, one that denies them in specific areas. In practice, it seems unlikely that someone could truly respect homosexuality while simultaneously denying basic human rights—like the right to parenthood, for example—don't you think?

Brandon Rivera2 said:So, I'm trying to wrap my head around what "homophobia" actually means and what specifically falls under that umbrella...
Is it just thinking homosexuality is unnatural but then not really doing anything about it? Or is it being against things like marriage equality or adoption rights without being physically aggressive toward people? Basically, what specific traits does someone need to have to be labeled a "homophobe"... because the term gets thrown around all the time, but it feels like nobody's ever quite clear on what they actually mean by it...

I suppose you could define homophobia as any kind of resistance—whether it's psychological, or expressed through subtle behaviors or speech—that a person feels (consciously or otherwise) when they encounter homosexuality, whether that’s through seeing actual people or just through abstract examples, like statistics, symbols, biographies, or even media representations. Since so much regarding how we perceive sexuality and gender is socially constructed, I imagine that this internal resistance is also something learned and socially determined. In a broader cultural sense, it's essentially any form of societal discomfort tied to homosexuality.

If we were looking for a "homophobe" in a practical, everyday sense, it would probably be someone who feels uneasy about homosexuality or resists the idea that it exists, should exist, or is a normal part of the human experience.

Jamie Cox12 said:It’s so easy for everyone to sit there and preach about just ignoring what people say, but it’s a completely different story when you're actually dealing with it and facing insults on a daily basis... honestly, it just messes with your head until you start believing that you really are the person they claim you are😲. No matter how much people tell us not to care about the noise or what others think, it’s just not true. Unfortunately, some people's words don't just go in one ear and out the other; they actually stick😢

Yes, that is incredibly painful while it's actually happening. And it's hard to move past it, especially if it's only happened once or twice in your life. For someone as young as the original poster, I suppose that's perfectly understandable. But perhaps with each subsequent time—and let's be honest, this will happen to everyone thousands of times throughout a lifetime—you become a bit wiser; you realize that these things always have their own context. If someone is mocking you, maybe it isn't just because you are being difficult, but rather because that person is simply unkind, insecure, foolish, or just looking for a fight? Those aren't exactly great qualities to have. A decent, well-adjusted person would probably rather hang out with the target of the mockery than with someone acting like that. It takes some time, I guess, to realize your own worth—what makes you a good person, a friend, a student, or a child to your parents.

No one is born to fail, though some people certainly train themselves to expect nothing and to doubt everything, especially themselves. You will always have yourself above all else, so please don't forget that—other people (especially those who are insignificant or rude) simply cannot be the yardstick for your value.

Lisa Lopez6 said:So, I'm 16. Yeah, I'm basically the old lady of my class. When I was about 6, I had this crazy dream where I was in a massive car wreck and ended up paralyzed for two years. After two years of just... struggling, the dream ended with some intense leg surgery (sorry, blunt phrasing, I know) and suddenly I was back on my feet. I was 9 when that happened, which meant I started first grade at 9. Obviously, once everyone found out, they started giving me crap just because I'm the oldest in the room.😠

I guess I’d probably say that they should have just placed her in first grade instead of third—though, honestly, she definitely could have handled the curriculum without any trouble. It really makes you wonder what happens when psychologists don't step in and do their jobs when they're supposed to.

I suppose you shouldn't give them too much headspace—honestly, it’s probably best to just view this whole period as one of those fleeting, slightly ridiculous phases that you'll eventually look back on with a smile. It's one of those things you really shouldn't have spent so much energy worrying about while you were actually in the middle of it. If I can offer any advice, maybe try to lean into your age as an advantage—try to come across as someone who simply understands life, people, and how the world works a bit more deeply. You really do seem to have a better handle on things than the average person your age—or even the kids in your grade, for that matter. It might just be a result of circumstance, I guess, but it's certainly true.

Don't you dare give up—honestly, the worst is probably already behind you.

brightlynx39 argues that we should be discussing why doctors and medical students seem to hold a higher social status than many other professions—which she finds unfair, given her view that med school isn't necessarily the most grueling path and that, in practice, physicians aren't always the most ethical individuals out there.

Is that actually the topic at hand?

If it is, then at least a few posts here are technically on-topic. Perhaps we can move forward from there without resorting to sweeping generalizations. 😍

Or, even better, based on what granitefalcon26 and I were discussing while we sat there, the subject ought to have been: the sociology and psychology behind the prestige of the medical profession.

(I feel a bit responsible for this, so I suppose I'll try to set things right.)

Kyle Lee7 said:Wait, is Melpina the same forum member who used to go by Melpy? I suppose usernames can be changed, right?

brightlynx39 said:And here I was thinking... Melpy is mostly known for having that whole doctor fetish thing going on.

I didn't even think of Melpy—and certainly wouldn't have connected her to that specific fetish. Not really.
This is probably getting a bit off-topic, I guess, but it touches on something that always bothers me about this place—how to take a thread that started out poorly and actually turn it into something substantive or useful.

Because, fundamentally, the topic itself is fine—it actually has a legitimate place in sociology, if not psychology—it's just that the bias and the constant reliance on raw personal anecdotes, without any sort of framing, is what really needs to be adjusted.

It’s entirely possible to act with "good intentions" while being completely blind to the actual fallout of your actions—all those little variables and ripples that end up hitting someone else. You might genuinely believe you're doing the right thing, even if you're inadvertently causing harm. But I suppose there's a distinction to be made: there are those who are simply oblivious, and then there are those who constantly insist they are "good people" or claim they would never dream of acting a certain way, even when their actual behavior suggests quite the opposite.

Edit: and honestly, I guess I'm also guilty of this sometimes—not realizing I'm doing something wrong while fully believing my intentions are pure.

Look, I’m not really making an assumption here—I know I can be difficult sometimes.
From what you're describing, people would just call that being hypocritical, dishonest, or two-faced—whatever term fits best.

Donna Wood52 said:It’s not that they lack the ability—far from it—but I get this distinct impression that they’re just incredibly cold-blooded.

Well, I suppose they almost have to be cold-blooded. I mean, imagine if they actually let themselves get emotionally invested in every single case—that would be impossible to sustain all the time, for reasons we've already touched on earlier in this thread.

granitefalcon26 said:You can't paint everyone with the same brush. It’s just become this trendy witch hunt over here lately. 🙄
It doesn't matter how many lives you save; the second you make one tiny mistake, they're ready to crucify you.🙄

Of course, that's because you aren't allowed tomake a mistake through your own fault. That’s a different matter entirely from accidental errors or cases where there was simply nothing that could be done to save someone.

The point here, anyway, is trying to figure out the reasonwhy doctors are treated as if they are "higher beings"—even when they do make an actual mistake through their own negligence.😉

Alright, folks, since everyone seems to be jumping in to give out praise—I might as well join in! I want to give a shout-out to both of them, the fairy and Gary James88.

I appreciate Gary James88 partly because he actually took the time to back my post 🤣 😍 yesterday, but more importantly, it's because he has such remarkably coherent insights and always tries to look at things from multiple angles—you know, seeing all those different layers. He also never misses a beat when it comes to the social side of things, which I personally find quite refreshing.

As for the fairy, she is really impressive when it comes to offering practical advice and breaking down the various complexities of whatever problem someone brings up in their opening post.

Both of them are just so level-headed—honestly, if they weren't this calm, it would feel really out of place on an American Psychology forum. 😲

They’re both truly great, so kudos to them. I’m just glad I stumbled upon this forum and met them both.

Donna Wood52 said:Hey there!

Now, please—don't come for me just yet. I’m not talking about fetishes here; this is just an observation I've made. 👍

From what I can see with medical students, a lot of them act like they're some kind of superior species—which explains why so many grow up to have such massive egos. They're completely delusional.
I've actually met people like that personally, not to mention how everyone immediately jumps to say, "Oh, my friend is in med school, it's definitely the hardest major out there." Isn't that a little insulting to everyone else? To suggest that medicine is the absolute peak of difficulty? Don't get me wrong, med school is grueling, but you can't just claim it's the hardest. In my opinion, an Electrical Engineering degree is way more intense—not to mention Math, Physics, or even Pharmacy...

And don't even get me started on the people who enroll in medical school just because they want that "Dr." title attached to their name.
People love to preach that medicine is the most noble science, but doctors aren't always noble—honestly, quite a few are incredibly arrogant. Take the psychiatrist I saw recently: she couldn't even grasp that I was dealing with depression. She kept making these subtle digs at me under the guise of being "polite," and then, once I was actually feeling great, she had the nerve to tell me I still needed therapy. It feels like they just want the money; as if having $83 a week isn't enough for her. ☕ On top of that, she holds us for 45 minutes for $83. What can you even discuss in 45 minutes? It takes 15 minutes just to get settled in the chair. 🤷

They claim to heal people, but it breaks my heart when they refuse to take someone with a tumor simply because the patient is poor and can't afford the bill. That's when you see the true character of certain doctors.

Please, spare me the inappropriate comments. I am genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on what I've written here.

Well, I suppose this is where you truly see a person's true colors. Unfortunately, there isn't really a prerequisite for character when it comes to getting into medical school. It's true, I guess, that it would be much easier if people understood that doctors aren't all-powerful (after all, healing requires two sides, unless one is just looking for power), but it still remains that physicians, surgeons, psychologists, psychiatrists, and educators—more than most other professions—really need to work on their self-criticism and constant learning. Especially on being self-critical. I might even go so far as to say they need to work on humility, since their whole purpose is to serve someone else's health—their life and quality of life. Perhaps the high prestige of a doctor (acting almost like some sort of modern shaman) has something to do with how they are perceived subconsciously—or perhaps historically and culturally—as being particularly wise —though we know that in this day and age, given current schooling conditions, existential pressures, the general state of morality, and the sheer workload (which ties back to the overall healthcare system), that isn't really the case anymore. So, that image is mostly maintained from the outside, but, as redharbor9 mentioned, it starts from within—through the profession itself. For instance, the handing over of bribes—which is sometimes seen as a "custom" when receiving health services—is just one informal indicator that the issue stems from both outside and inside the profession. How strong the pressure for such informal codes of conduct is, is evidenced by a recent example in literature, showing that even a literary depiction of such an issue cannot be tolerated if it originates from within. 😉

Here is one that seems a bit melancholy, though I suppose who could truly live without this kind of feeling?

My dear fairy tale

Almost every single time
whenever our eyes happen to meet 😍
you act as if you don't recognize me
as if we were total strangers

And yet, I find myself wanting to call out to you
just as you are drifting off to sleep
to be the very first voice you hear in a dream
telling you that I still love you

My dear fairy tale
you are my dream, you really are my dream
though perhaps it would be easier if you were just someone else to me😍
someone I didn't know, someone I hadn't met

🤷

Daniel Wilson5 said:I feel like I’m sitting for a midterm here... are you perhaps a professor???
just enlighten us already

Well, since this is your topic, I assumed you had a specific angle in mind, which is why I asked. The question is actually pretty straightforward—anyone who has ever dealt with a homophobe can probably identify the general type of personality (or worldview) involved. Though, I suppose it isn't always that black and white—someone could be homophobic and yet still be... well, a professor, for instance!
I'm certainly not a professor, though I suppose I am a professional chatter, if you want to call it that.

Daniel Wilson5 said:hmmm, linking it to abortion being murder????🤷

To rephrase my question—what specific set of values is homophobia actually tied to?

Goodness.
What kind of values do you all think drive homophobia? I mean, if someone were actually conducting a study, what would they find it correlates with—perhaps an intense focus on family values, a high degree of patriotism, practical religious observance, or even the belief that abortion is murder?
If you had to take a guess, what other factors might be linked to it?

Everything about RC is basically a joke—granted, sometimes the irony isn't quite as blatant as it could be, but it’s definitely there.
RC is really just a parody of the whole Red Carpet concept.
I don't think it's fair to jump to the conclusion that Delale is homophobic just because of the show's premise, which seems to treat everyone with the same level of irreverence. 🤷

redharbor9 said:I’m honestly not sure if this is meant to be a comment, a question, or if you're actually asking me something 😁

It feels more like a weirdly phrased observation disguised as a question. 😕
Seriously though, super Silva, have you actually watched that? She did that whole series of segments on RC about how she’s suddenly a lesbian, even introduced her girlfriend on the show—they were all over each other and whatnot. To me, it doesn't come across as homophobic at all.
There were segments about those fringe queer events, sure, but I think there are just as many reports on fringe straight stuff. Generally speaking, the segments tend to focus on outsiders—on both sides, really. So, my take would be that RC isn't homophobic; it's more that Delale, with all her performative stuff regarding her sexual orientation, has developed a bit of a bad reputation among the general public. 😁

redharbor9 said:From what I can tell, he only ever focused on the fringe elements of the gay community—basically just the people looking for clout and TV time. He didn't give a damn about regular folks or actual issues, so yeah, he basically did a great job feeding into those tired old stereotypes...

And then there was that one person—I couldn't recall her name for a second, though I could easily look it up: super Silva—who decided she was a lesbian and spent every single week talking about her girlfriend. So, what was that all about? Besides that, most of the stuff on Red Carpet feels like a collection of oddballs; honestly, I don't see much difference between the straight trashy types and the gay ones.🤷

Edward Wilson82 said:The whole concept of "homophobia" is just one of those constructs cooked up by gay intellectuals that has zero connection to reality. Originally, the term was used in psychiatric jargon to describe an individual's fear of their own homosexual inclinations. But then, activists hijacked the word and redefined it to label any negative attitude, hatred, or supposed "fear" toward homosexuals.
As a rhetorical weapon, its sole purpose is to discredit, smear, and belittle anyone standing against homosexual behavior or its legalization. Naturally, they don't bother pointing out that this includes all opponents universally. In the public eye, activists will slap the "homophobe" label on actual violent bigots—like skinheads, for instance—to shift focus onto those specific character flaws and show why those people oppose homosexuality. But in practical discourse, they’ll pin the "homophobe" tag on anyone who thinks homosexual behavior is bad, abnormal, or harmful. If they want to be honest, we should demand that activists and lawyers actually explain the difference between a homophobe and someone who simply opposes homosexuality without being one.

Furthermore, the term "homophobia" frames opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness. This gives activists a certain kind of thrill since homosexuality was removed from the list of psychiatric disorders back in 1973. Now, suddenly, they're the healthy ones, and anyone speaking out against them is mentally ill. It's obvious to everyone that a stroke of a pen doesn't fix a disorder, nor can it make someone mentally unstable.

Thirdly, the term "homophobia" acts as a semantic stand-in for "racism," intended to signal to the public that opposing homosexuality is equivalent to racial prejudice against minorities.
Basically, these different angles of "homophobia" serve to silence and shame opponents. That way, when someone disagrees with homosexuality, its behavior, its legalization, or pride parades... they can be immediately branded as either mentally ill or a racist.

Bottom line: "homophobia" is a load of nonsense invented by gay pundits to use as a rhetorical club against anyone in their way.

I think that's all quite inaccurate. I mean, just as social prejudices are declaredly attached to the people they target, theoretically, the label of homophobe could also be applied to someone—somewhat arbitrarily or opportunistically, without much thought. But, I suppose that isn't the main point. The important thing is that homophobia is studied as a legitimate phenomenon by researchers—there are actually sociological surveys used to measure levels of homophobia. So, it isn't just some arbitrary weapon for arguing, nor is it strictly a political issue. It's possible to study any social prejudice using scientific methods. And while they might share certain traits, not all social prejudices are direct equivalents to racism.

Ryan Wood98 said:Could someone please explain how the host of "Red Carpet" managed to end up on a list of top homophobes?

I don't follow the show very closely, so I'm not entirely sure what he actually said or did, but from what I have seen of the program, it honestly feels quite... how should I put this... homoerotic?

I suppose even he doesn't really get it himself. 🤣

It seemed pretty strange to me too. I recall—just like he mentioned—that there were actually some quite queer-friendly segments in the show. Maybe the issue is that he keeps trying to imply he's straight through certain comments about women, and I guess that just rubs people who are out the wrong way. 🤷