Are homophobes just closeted?

Since I don't see a dedicated PDF group here, I'm not quite sure where else to host this discussion.

So, with San Francisco Pride approaching—and given how relevant this topic feels right now—I’ve been chewing on a thesis that was previously mentioned. Mind you, these are just my own musings; I haven't backed any of this up with actual scientific research or anything of the sort.

Let's break it down step by step:

It’s basic human nature, really—people tend to lash out when they feel threatened. From that perspective, I can somewhat grasp the logic behind certain homophobe panics—that irrational fear that some overly feminine guy is going to show up and somehow force a change upon you.

But that premise is fundamentally flawed, isn't it? Because, let's be honest, you don't simply "become" gay through external pressure.

Fear of the unknown tends to manifest in two distinct ways: one group of people reacts with curiosity, seeking to understand what they don't know, while the other group—well, they just swing wildly at shadows.

On the flip side, there's the fear of social rejection, which can also trigger aggression. It's that crushing realization that you might belong to a group that society dislikes—the fear of being mocked or physically targeted. In an attempt to distance themselves from their true selves, some people choose to surround themselves with diametrically opposed social circles just to prove they aren't what they truly are.

It is quite interesting, though, that the most vocal homophobes often belong to groups composed almost entirely of men—think aggressive sports hooligans, Skinheads, and the like.

There have even been documented cases in Germany where Skinheads would beat someone up, only for one of them to follow it up by giving the victim his phone number to "hang out" later. A bit of a strange contradiction, wouldn't you say?

That leads me to my question: Is the suppression of one's own sexual orientation capable of fueling a total, visceral hatred toward it?

Just to be clear, I'm not looking to offend anyone here—neither homophobes nor homosexuals. I'm genuinely curious if anyone else has reached similar "empirical" conclusions through their own observations.

Yeah, basically any kind of suppression just triggers negative vibes toward whatever is being pushed down or even toward people who represent it.

But look, I honestly DON'T GET IT, and I seriously can't wrap my head around why it's such a massive deal to broadcast your sexual orientation to the world—and ideally right in the middle of the street, too...? Because, truthfully, I don't see how the gay community differs from anyone else besides that one specific thing, and I don't see why it needs to be used to highlight differences between people.

For instance, over here in the States, we have guys like Johnny Appleseed, who came out as homosexual back when that was a total TABOO, back when nobody dared to say anything, and this guy recently stated—to paraphrase—that he finds it "tasteless to discuss his own sexual affinities even if he isn't hiding them." And man, I really tip my hat to him. Like, for crying out loud, being homosexual isn't a career choice...

I mean, can someone please just explain to me WHY it’s necessary to parade your sexual preferences through the city; I mean, who actually cares?

Would it be considered OK if everyone who enjoys a certain "type" of sex got together and organized an "ass-pride" or a "fellatio-pride"...? Maybe even a "sado-masochism pride"—those people would at least be a thousand times more interesting for psychoanalysis than homosexuals...

I honestly don't quite grasp the point of all these similar gatherings—not just the gay parades, but even certain concerts...

I mean, at the end of the day, I really want to see how the average person reacts—you know, those folks who seem to think they might suddenly turn gay just because they shared a drink with one of them after the show.

Ultimately, we need to start having these conversations, because that’s the only way to actually strip away the stigma surrounding this "group."

Think about it—back in the day, people used to burn women at the stake like witches, and it took them a while to realize just how foolish they were being.

Perhaps a thing like San Francisco Pride could help people see that these are just regular people, just like anyone else, and maybe then the attacks will finally stop.

Jonathan Kim4 said:I honestly don't quite grasp the point of all these similar gatherings—not just the gay parades, but even certain concerts...

I mean, at the end of the day, I really want to see how the average person reacts—you know, those folks who seem to think they might suddenly turn gay just because they shared a drink with one of them after the show.

Ultimately, we need to start having these conversations, because that’s the only way to actually strip away the stigma surrounding this "group."

Think about it—back in the day, people used to burn women at the stake like witches, and it took them a while to realize just how foolish they were being.

Perhaps a thing like San Francisco Pride could help people see that these are just regular people, just like anyone else, and maybe then the attacks will finally stop.

Yeah, I guess that’s basically why they put those parades together. Honestly, the whole thing feels kind of ridiculous to me because I’ve never had an issue with gay people, nor has anyone in my neck of the woods. They’ve always seemed totally normal to me, and frankly, their personalities are way more interesting than who they happen to be dating.

Whatever, let them march if they want to. To me, it just looks a little pathetic. And honestly, it sucks because I know how these things usually go down... A few years back right here, a group of Skinheads went after them, and I think the cops just completely lost control of the situation too... It was a total disaster. Just pure, unadulterated primitivism.

Paul Perez said:Yeah, I guess that’s basically why they put those parades together. Honestly, the whole thing feels kind of ridiculous to me because I’ve never had an issue with gay people, nor has anyone in my neck of the woods. They’ve always seemed totally normal to me, and frankly, their personalities are way more interesting than who they happen to be dating.

Whatever, let them march if they want to. To me, it just looks a little pathetic. And honestly, it sucks because I know how these things usually go down... A few years back right here, a group of Skinheads went after them, and I think the cops just completely lost control of the situation too... It was a total disaster. Just pure, unadulterated primitivism.

Being openly gay isn't the problem. What actually interests me are the closeted types—the ones who hypocritically hide who they are while spitting on the gay community, essentially loathing themselves in the process.

And I highly doubt that every single one of these people bashing gays was traumatized by some priest when they were kids and is now just looking for revenge. 😁

Anything left hanging in the air is just a ticking time bomb...

Hmm, it seems a lot of people just aren't ready to embrace their homosexuality for various reasons.

At its core, being gay is difficult because of the immense psychological pressure exerted by society at large and the isolation you end up facing. We can all claim to be tolerant, well-read, and progressive, but once you experience it firsthand, you realize very quickly how intense the pressure from family, friends, religion, and society as a whole truly is.

I went through this during my school years, and I still deal with it every single day. You need nerves of steel and an incredible amount of energy just to attempt any kind of serious or meaningful relationship, because everything feels stacked against you.

I know several guys who are also gay, but there is absolutely no way they will ever be ready to fully clear the air with themselves (I can understand them, though, since taking the path of least resistance is much easier). In most cases, it's the family that presents the biggest hurdle and is responsible for planting those mental blocks. They would love to hook up, to feel sexually free even for just a moment, and then go right back to the script: the wife or girlfriend, the "normal" family life... meanwhile, they are catastrophically sexually frustrated, but they hide it very carefully...
I have personally witnessed several homophobic outbursts from people like that.

What's worse is how massive that group is; you only have to scroll through the internet for a bit before some guy pops up with a comment like: "I'm straight, I just want pure sex (as if anyone should try that) but without the emotions, blah blah blah..." It's sad and pathetic.

Of course, there are also people who are homophobes for much simpler reasons, like basic narrow-mindedness.

PS. Regarding the parades, I believe that if society is mature and tolerant enough, the parades, the flags, and all that surrounding PR circus is something desirable and acceptable. I'm not sure if we are at that level yet, but in any case, I tip my hat to all the organizations that have worked hard on it; it's a battle against windmills, and I hope there won't be any unnecessary incidents.

Jonathan Kim4 said:I honestly don't quite grasp the point of all these similar gatherings—not just the gay parades, but even certain concerts...

I mean, at the end of the day, I really want to see how the average person reacts—you know, those folks who seem to think they might suddenly turn gay just because they shared a drink with one of them after the show.

Ultimately, we need to start having these conversations, because that’s the only way to actually strip away the stigma surrounding this "group."

Think about it—back in the day, people used to burn women at the stake like witches, and it took them a while to realize just how foolish they were being.

Perhaps a thing like San Francisco Pride could help people see that these are just regular people, just like anyone else, and maybe then the attacks will finally stop.

To me, Pride feels like a crowd of loud eccentrics. I think I would respect them more if I met them in my daily life as ordinary, capable, smart, and private people, rather than seeing them in that chaotic mess in downtown Chicago.

Why do you believe that homosexuals are being "attacked" or targeted?
Personally, I am strictly against any kind of violence, including toward LGBT individuals, but I suppose they have strayed a bit from what could be considered a "natural" or "divine" path, which seems evidenced by their extreme methods of "fighting for rights."

There are probably gay people who keep their sexuality to themselves. I don't mean they are hiding from the public, but rather that it is simply one component of their personality that they don't feel the need to broadcast on the streets. That seems perfectly fine to me. As long as people are happy, I guess it doesn't matter.

So, based on your theory, Jonathan Kim4, is racial hatred against Black Americans driven by the idea that, say, white people fear they might somehow become part of that same group just by having any kind of contact with them?

How much have I actually grasped here... it seems like Pride is mostly backed by liberal heterosexuals—people who are all about those social experiments and pushing the envelope on things like sexual freedom and such.
As for the gay community itself, from what I've heard from quite a few of them, they aren't really into the whole idea of marching through the streets just to convince passersby that being gay is okay... they don't exactly jump at the chance to support it.
I suppose it's because they are, first and foremost, people with jobs and lives to lead—individuals trying to make something of themselves... they aren't defined solely by their attraction to the same sex.

Inspired by a previous thread on this same forum, I find myself wandering toward a different subject altogether... Are anti-fascists truly anything more than fascists in disguise? Or perhaps they are simply aggressive individuals who project their own penchant for violence onto others because they lack the sheer nerve—or perhaps the social standing—to express such hostility openly... It makes me wonder about the true identity of today's "anti-fascists." Are they still fighting some phantom battle against figures like Hitler or Pavelić?
Do they lean on the label of "fascist" merely because it serves as a convenient political cudgel in our current climate—a way to smear an opponent—or is it just a manifestation of a deep-seated personal aggression that would surface in any era or any society, regardless of the context?
In America today, it seems far too easy to brand someone a fascist; the accusation is thrown around constantly, particularly within the theater of political warfare where certain leftists will cast anyone they deem a patriot—or indeed, any ideological opponent—as a fascist...
The dynamic feels quite similar to the endless cycle of accusations between communists and anti-communists, though I suppose the charge of fascism carries a much heavier, more devastating weight, which is why I feel compelled to prioritize it here...

I get what you're trying to say here, but this really belongs in a thread about homosexuality (which is why I moved it there).
On the other hand, equating anti-fascism with homophobia just doesn't work for me.

Jonathan Kim4 said:Since I don't see a dedicated PDF group here, I'm not quite sure where else to host this discussion.

So, with San Francisco Pride approaching—and given how relevant this topic feels right now—I’ve been chewing on a thesis that was previously mentioned. Mind you, these are just my own musings; I haven't backed any of this up with actual scientific research or anything of the sort.

Let's break it down step by step:

It’s basic human nature, really—people tend to lash out when they feel threatened. From that perspective, I can somewhat grasp the logic behind certain homophobe panics—that irrational fear that some overly feminine guy is going to show up and somehow force a change upon you.

But that premise is fundamentally flawed, isn't it? Because, let's be honest, you don't simply "become" gay through external pressure.

Fear of the unknown tends to manifest in two distinct ways: one group of people reacts with curiosity, seeking to understand what they don't know, while the other group—well, they just swing wildly at shadows.

On the flip side, there's the fear of social rejection, which can also trigger aggression. It's that crushing realization that you might belong to a group that society dislikes—the fear of being mocked or physically targeted. In an attempt to distance themselves from their true selves, some people choose to surround themselves with diametrically opposed social circles just to prove they aren't what they truly are.

It is quite interesting, though, that the most vocal homophobes often belong to groups composed almost entirely of men—think aggressive sports hooligans, Skinheads, and the like.

There have even been documented cases in Germany where Skinheads would beat someone up, only for one of them to follow it up by giving the victim his phone number to "hang out" later. A bit of a strange contradiction, wouldn't you say?

That leads me to my question: Is the suppression of one's own sexual orientation capable of fueling a total, visceral hatred toward it?

Just to be clear, I'm not looking to offend anyone here—neither homophobes nor homosexuals. I'm genuinely curious if anyone else has reached similar "empirical" conclusions through their own observations.

This reminds me of that movie *MASH* (or maybe a similar psychological drama), where an aggressive homophobe turns out to be a deeply frustrated, closeted man. Honestly, that trope feels pretty grounded in reality to me..

Yeah, I’ve actually stumbled upon a similar "empirical truth" myself, though that doesn't mean there won't be exceptions to the rule every now and then.

Gerald Rivera60 said:I get what you're trying to say here, but this really belongs in a thread about homosexuality (which is why I moved it there).
On the other hand, equating anti-fascism with homophobia just doesn't work for me.

If those don't serve as adequate analogies for you, then one might consider other contradictions, such as whether liberals are truly autocrats in disguise, or if die-hard sports fans who harbor nothing but hatred for a rival team can really be called supporters of their own club, or even if those loudest when condemning corruption are actually just thieves themselves...

Those aren't even really analogous examples. According to certain psychologists—specifically those from psychodynamic and related schools of thought—homosexuality involves deep-seated psychological roots. They suggest it triggers defense mechanisms, such as reaction formation, when someone encounters homosexuality. Essentially, you adopt the exact opposite stance as a way to defend yourself against your own impulses.
It’s similar to being excessively polite to someone who is getting under your skin when you aren't allowed to snap at them; the only difference here is that this reaction formation happens almost entirely unconsciously.
That said, I don't believe every homophobe is a latent homosexual. While some certainly are, I suspect the majority simply possess what is known as an authoritarian personality.

James Turner80 said:So, based on your theory, Jonathan Kim4, is racial hatred against Black Americans driven by the idea that, say, white people fear they might somehow become part of that same group just by having any kind of contact with them?

Not quite. I’m operating under the assumption that "normal" people actually view homosexuals as human beings. When you look at the historical friction between white and Black Americans, Black people weren't exactly treated as equals—they were treated more like... well, pets. And even then, only if they behaved.

The thing is, you can spot a Black person on a street corner and prepare a glare or a condescending look. You can't really do that with a homosexual.

In short—and I wasn't focusing on ethnic groups, political factions, or any other sociological category here—it's just a matter of petty tribalism. "Us" versus "them." Who exactly constitutes "us" or "them"? I'll leave that for you all to decide.

Megan Ramos29 said:Yeah, I’ve actually stumbled upon a similar "empirical truth" myself, though that doesn't mean there won't be exceptions to the rule every now and then.

well then

I guess I can head down to the Pride parade in New York tomorrow and shout at all those punks and skinheads that they're nothing but a bunch of degenerates😁

Gerald Rivera60 said:Those aren't even really analogous examples. According to certain psychologists—specifically those from psychodynamic and related schools of thought—homosexuality involves deep-seated psychological roots. They suggest it triggers defense mechanisms, such as reaction formation, when someone encounters homosexuality. Essentially, you adopt the exact opposite stance as a way to defend yourself against your own impulses.
It’s similar to being excessively polite to someone who is getting under your skin when you aren't allowed to snap at them; the only difference here is that this reaction formation happens almost entirely unconsciously.
That said, I don't believe every homophobe is a latent homosexual. While some certainly are, I suspect the majority simply possess what is known as an authoritarian personality.

Perhaps that holds true regarding homosexuals, but I am not interested in a single isolated case of a "defensive" attack—in this context, the homophobes—but rather in the general phenomenon... You have shifted my introduction onto this specific topic, so that is where our discussion lies. I fail to see why this particular instance would differ from the examples I previously provided...
So, let me reiterate: why does someone lash out at another person (or perhaps at a certain phenomenon within society, for example) if there is no rational reason for it, or if the reason is so flimsy that the attack becomes an absurd or even pathological act? I do not know the answer myself (much like most people, otherwise we wouldn't be debating it), but I suspect it isn't because the attacker is a closeted version of whatever they hate, but rather because aggression is inherent to the human condition and it simply seeks out an object upon which to manifest itself. That object irritates the attacker merely by existing, especially if it manifests publicly or makes itself known in some fashion...

Gerald Rivera60 said:Those aren't even really analogous examples. According to certain psychologists—specifically those from psychodynamic and related schools of thought—homosexuality involves deep-seated psychological roots. They suggest it triggers defense mechanisms, such as reaction formation, when someone encounters homosexuality. Essentially, you adopt the exact opposite stance as a way to defend yourself against your own impulses.
It’s similar to being excessively polite to someone who is getting under your skin when you aren't allowed to snap at them; the only difference here is that this reaction formation happens almost entirely unconsciously.
That said, I don't believe every homophobe is a latent homosexual. While some certainly are, I suspect the majority simply possess what is known as an authoritarian personality.

So, are these latent homosexuals actually aware that they're gay, or is it all happening subconsciously? That part isn't quite clear to me.🙂