Final Paper
The Social Construction of Sexuality: HONR 300S 1W
Professor Sharon Abbott
10 May 2000

Jason Waltman
Wittenberg University
Class of 2001

All rights reserved.  No part of this report may be reprinted or reproduced without permission in writing from the author.

A Survey of Homophobia.pdf
97 KB

It was probably during junior high, when I found myself in a locker room of undressing guys for the first time, that I realized that I was gay. Of course, no one else could tell at that time what I was thinking--and I sure as hell was not going to tell anyone. I did not for quite a long time. 

A few of my more liberal high school friends were the first to know. But I didn't tell them--in fact they told me. I remember standing in a line in an amusement park...they were basically just trying to get me to tell them, and in a larger since, finally admit it to myself. I felt better after at least someone knew; they gave me a well-needed outlet to express my true feelings. I had trouble telling everyone though. I knew that if certain people knew, they would probably no longer consider me a friend. I did not want that to happen. As it turned out, it was probably not until my sophomore or junior years in college that I realized the true definition of a friend. Even now however I often find myself misguided, observing that definition floating on a fluid boundary.

As Jeffery Escoffier opens his book American Homo, "[t]he desire to live honestly..." (1) is at the heart of the binding of all homosexuals. In that vein, I could care less who knows now. I feel free to express myself as the individual I am; I hang whatever 'incriminatory' evidence I want on my walls. If someone has a problem with the things I do, say, et cetera, I will probably be less reluctant to call them a friend. As I was once told: "It's their loss, not yours."

Why did I remain hidden for so long if 'coming out' has made me a much happier person? From what I best recall from junior high and high school, being gay was not something you wanted to be nor was it a quality you looked for in a person to be in your 'group'. The effeminate guys were always made fun of and harassed--even if they were not gay, but just suspected to be gay by the general student body. I did not want to be different. I wanted to have friends; I did not want to be isolated. If all I had to do was hide the fact that I was attracted to my male friends, then I decided it shouldn't be all that hard. Anyway, everyone assumes everyone else is straight--at least at the beginning.

I was afraid of being ostracized because I knew the reactions of most students to my homosexuality would be negative. This then raises another question: Why would they have such reactions? Was it simply the fact that I was different? In junior high, probably yes. Nevertheless, the same negative atmosphere has followed me as I have grown, and I have seen it follow the rest of the homosexual community as well. In part, this paper will attempt to answer this question.

In their study on human values in relation to stereotypes of homosexuals, Patrick Heaven and Lisa Oxman argue that values guide human conduct. They cite the definition of a value as: "a (1) belief (2) pertaining to desirable end states or modes of conduct, that (3) transcends specific situations, (4) guides selection or evaluation of behavior, people and events and (5) is ordered by importance to other values..." (qtd. in 110). They found that, for the most part, values dealing with harmony (i.e. those that attempt to promote others' lives) and security (i.e. order, discipline, and the want to have some amount of control in one's life) influence societal beliefs and suggest that the 'norms' society has inherited over time should be respected. It would follow that conservatism and the already present degrading impressions society has on minority groups--in some ways--acts as justification for the prejudice and negative stereotypes that are placed on these groups (110-11). The relevant example here is in that this study found that the more conservative a person the more likely he/she would be to hold negative stereotypes of homosexuals (114).

Up front, homosexuals are like any other minority group that is looked down upon because of the fact that they are different. However, some of the common (mis)perceptions of homosexuals include: the cause of AIDS, a negation of 'moral' sex roles, and as having a contagious disease (and whom therefore should not be allowed to interact with the public). None of these views help to positively differentiate homosexuality from other prejudiced groups--and if anything it makes us appear worse. Judd Marmor, editor of a book called Homosexual Behavior, argues in her introduction that the attitudes towards homosexuality (at least in Western cultures) are primarily the result of Judeo-Christian tradition. She notes--as any homosexual or homosexual researcher who has also fought what I like to call: 'the religious problem'--the obvious humor in this fact: Those who cite the Bible as justification to their opposition to homosexuality, also commonly have a basic tolerance of the "presumably equally sinful acts (according to the Bible) of alcoholism and adultery" (18).

Part of the problem seems to be the fact that, unlike other stigmatized groups, the basis of homosexuality, homoeroticism, is commonly found in society. Escoffier describes homoeroticism as "a cultural formation, a system of meanings, signifying the potential intimacy, sexual pleasure, and sensibility of same-sex bonding that the hegemonic regime of compulsory heterosexuality prohibits" (emphasis added 6). He states that the suspicion of the homoerotic brings many feelings to the foreground, one of which is "panic about one's own homosexual desires" (6): the definition of homophobia.

Given this definition, homophobia could be used to describe both individuals who consider themselves straight and individuals who consider themselves gay (or, for that matter, do not yet know). Escoffier recalls my thoughts from high school claiming homosexuals have been ready for some time now to become a part of the public life. However ideas of gay men in the military, gay and lesbian marriages, and portrayals of homosexual conduct on public television "provoke anxiety, perhaps even fear and loathing" (7), thus building a slight barrier to societal integration. 

The term homophobia was first used by George Weinberg in 1972 as "the fear felt by heterosexuals when in near proximity to homosexuals (exogenous homophobia), and the self-hatred felt by gays because of their homosexuality (internalized homophobia)" (qtd. in Dupras 23). Almost a decade later, Marmor defines the term as based on at least one of the following: "(1) a deep-seated insecurity concerning one's own sexuality and gender identity, (2) a strong religious indoctrination, or (3) simple ignorance about homosexuals" (19). More recently, as Henry Adams, et al, state, it appears that the term has been expanded in the media as to not only be the fear of homosexuals, but "any negative attitude, belief, or action toward homosexuality" (440).

As my title suggests, I present this paper as a survey of homophobia--with focus on the negative effects homophobia has (both internal and external) on gay/lesbian society and the reasons or explanations as to why people are homophobic. The topic is of personally interest to me, not only because of my own sexuality and the (irritating) homophobic people I have encountered in my life, but also because a friend in high school once accused me of being homophobic myself. Adams, et al, claim "...negative attitudes and behaviors toward gay individuals have been assumed to be associated with rigid moralistic beliefs, sexual ignorance, and fear of homosexuality..." (440). It is this assumption and the results of these negative attitudes that this paper attempts to show. Through the numerous studies I read in regards to this topic, I claim that homophobia is a principal source in explaining the isolation and prejudice homosexuals feel from society and that the cause of homophobia, while scientifically unknown, deals with misperceptions of homosexuality and the insecurities of one's own sexuality.

Which Came First:
The Chicken or the Egg?

Is it always true that cause precedes effect? Mostly, I suppose. But which is known first? If X happens to Y, is it not most usually true that we learn about X as a result of Y happening? Did researchers not observe the effects of homophobia, before its causes were known (that is to say if they are known at all)? With that said and to answer the question 'Does cause always precede effect?': I would have to say no, at least not in this paper. I do not know who's side this puts me on--the chicken's or the egg's--but it seems to make more since in a paper describing the causes and effects of homophobia, given the above justification, to explore the effects first.

As high school (unfortunately) is still fairly clear in my mind, I think it appropriate to begin with reports of homophobia by high school and college students. The best illustration of this came in the form of an article entitled "The Ideology of 'Fag'" by George W. Smith. In it, Smith studies first-hand accounts of heterosexism and homophobia in schools either by university undergraduates or high school dropouts--all of whom are gay. (It is to be noted that the majority of those who did not finish high school were openly gay in school, whereas those who made it to college were mostly 'closeted' (311).)

The students testified that being gay was never spoken of positively in school. The teachers were usually silent when the topic arose, and the ostracism of openly gay students was glossed over as something that is completely normal. Smith argues that the students' fear of isolation causes them to continually repress their emotions. This affects not only the students' lives in school, but serves as a negative foundation for the entire life of the individual (309-310). 

Early in his article Smith states that "[s]econdary schools are not the most welcoming places for [homosexual] students--especially if they are 'out'" (310). The remainder of the discussion and numerous quotes from the students he interviewed--if nothing else--proves this point. One student said: "I mean, it was assumed that you were heterosexual, and I think that more than anything was my biggest problem....If you made any conscious attempt to look well-dressed or you were perceived to dress 'funny'--you know, in quotations--you were a fag" (316). Heterosexuality is enforced in the schools by selecting certain behaviors as 'gay' and labeling individuals based solely on whether or not they exhibit these behaviors (316-317). For example the lack of interest in the opposite sex or having too many friends of the opposite sex is grounds for being labeled as gay. Should suspicion arise one would get the: "What, you're not gay, are you?" (324) question.

Smith's respondents explain that who was or was not gay in school was a continual point of discussion (318). And with apparently good reason too, because after you have the 'gay' label associated with your name, the majority of the students are not sympathetic of your feelings: "...they would do it when I was walking home. They would get me from behind. Just to jump on me and kick me, and no reason for it, just the fact that I was different" (319). Another student said: "[My 'out' friend] would be ostracized. People would exclude him from different things....Actually I think he ended up feeling so excluded that he left school" (318).

The pattern that most 'out' students went though was one of labeling, followed by verbal abuse, ostracism, and finally harassment from small to outright violence (320). According to those interviewed, graffiti on gay students lockers was not uncommon either: "One day someone spray painted 'Kill the Faggot' on mine, on my locker" (320). Graffiti, Smith argues, isolates the student as 'different' and, because of its obviousness, spreads the homophobic attitude of the vandals to other members of the school (321).

School's administration and faculty do not seem to be helping the problem any either. In fact, Smith calls the schools a "barrier to education" (332). One of the informants gave a plea for schools to make an effort to teach that homosexuality is not wrong and that homosexuals are people too (313). High school teachers express an openly homophobic attitude (here, not necessarily fear, but general hatred). They respond to heterosexism as not being one of the "professional responsibilities" of teachers--as it might be for race issues (329). One student said he actually had a notebook of all the homophobic comments made in class by one of his teachers (309). Another said he went to the school guidance counselor to talk about his homosexuality and was refused because the counselor feared that he was not allowed to talk about it (331). Yet another recalled what his principal told him after being sent to his office: "[H]e warned me that if I didn't keep my sexual preference under wraps that I'd be suspended" (314).

In general, it seems that gay high school students possibly find support from their friends and/or certain teachers, but Smith states "no school is reported as challenging the heterosexist hegemony of its public space" (328). Many of these student accounts seem all too familiar to me. My senior year we got a new French teacher who I soon found out was a lesbian. Carolyn found me out too, and as a result we ended up talking for long periods of time (normally at her house) about whatever happened to be on my mind. I remember going back and visiting her during my freshman year of college. She told me that I was only the beginning of the homosexual students who wanted to talk to her--and a large number of them wanted to start a support group. When she brought this up with the school guidance counselors and school principal, no one wanted anything to do with it, and she was advised not to encourage a group like that forming.

One of the things I normally talked to Carolyn about had to do with the people who--at that time--I thought were my friends. A certain friend in particular (let's call him Josh), always came up. I think that he liked being my friend, but he was more afraid of being called 'gay' himself. So when I started 'coming out of the closet' he stayed farther and farther away. When I read the following, I understood completely:

Attempting to pass as 'straight' in school, solves some problems, but at the same time it creates some as well. With random gay people walking around 'hidden' and feeling bad about themselves, they cannot talk and share their feelings with each other. Personally, finding other gay people to talk to, whether they be teachers or peers, was a big help. It made me realize that I was not alone, and the same feelings I have--that it seems the rest of the world thinks are odd--others have too. For myself, as I'm sure for many gay students, college ended up being the place to find more of these people. 

The move to college is a major time of change in students' lives. It is there that most 'possibly-gay' (or confused) individuals will determine their sexual identity. For all students--gay or not--college is the time that they learn that people come from a variety of backgrounds and have their own beliefs and values--and that commonly, not everyone shares the same beliefs and values. As a result, most learn to become more tolerant of others as they attempt to integrate themselves into the society. Similarly, if students can separate themselves from those who have contrasting beliefs to be with those who they can more easily identify, tolerance becomes easier.

A study by Richard Ferraro and Amy Dukart (which will be examined more closely during discussion of the causes of homophobia) illustrates this notion of college being a transition from the close-mindedness of high school to the more liberal college environment in terms of reactions to homosexuals. They cite work that demonstrates the fact that first-year students (especially first-year men, as we will see later) act more negatively towards homosexuals then do upper class students. In addition, those students living in residence halls (again, especially males) are less tolerant of homosexuals then those living out of the dorms (156). Despite this reality, in general, college students (because not all college students are first-year students) display homophobic attitudes less openly, if at all.

Christopher Aberson, Joye Swan, and Eric Emerson, cite reference that states that homophobic discrimination, as well as of other minorities, is similar in both origin and form. As society becomes more accepting, the discrimination becomes less overt over time (325). This of course is no better shown then through college students. Aberson, et al, showed four groups of students, each a separate video of a candidate the students believed might be hired as an HIV-AIDS spokesperson. Each video used the same actor to play four roles: a (1) heterosexual and (2) homosexual man, and a (3) heterosexual and (4) homosexual man with a negative comment made at the end of the videotape (328). The results implied that U.S. college students show--if any--covert negative attitudes towards homosexuals. That is, in general, the students showed favor towards the heterosexual candidates, but not necessarily opposition towards the gay candidates. Also notable is that the two groups of students who evaluated gay candidates were less likely to demonstrate overtly homophobic attitudes when tested on the Homophobia Scale after viewing the candidates (332). This favors the notion that familiarity (i.e. college students rather than high school students) reduces homophobia, and provides a healthier environment for homosexuals.

To shift gears away from academia--before discussion of the effects of internalized homophobia among homosexuals--one piece of research I found when preparing this paper dealt with the harassment of lesbians in the medical profession. As most of the studies on homophobia deal primarily with gay males and their homophobic male 'counterparts', I feel something should be said here about the homophobic effects on lesbians as well. Donna Brogan, et al, studied the frequency of harassment of lesbians and heterosexual women in varying levels of medical training and/or practice. What they found was that an equal number of lesbians and heterosexual women (about 50%) were harassed as a result of their gender, however lesbians were four times more likely to be harassed based on their sexual orientation (1290). In addition Brogan, et al, state that in a survey of female physicians (in San Diego County) 23% of those studied tested in the "homophobic range" (1290). Thirty percent of the physicians were opposed to letting qualified lesbians enter medical school and 45% opposed the "admittance of lesbians into residency training in pediatrics" (1290).

Escoffier describes 'coming out' as "[a liberating] moment...[where] a transformation on one's identity takes place. One rejects self-hatred and affirms the previously stigmatized self. The dialect of self-definition requires a confrontation between individual autonomy and established moral codes" (emphasis added 16). But what happens when one fails to reject self-hatred and therefore cannot fully 'come out'? As shown in the definitions at the beginning of this paper, homophobia is not necessarily a feeling felt by heterosexuals. Homophobia is also defined as the "self-hatred felt by gays because of their homosexuality" which can lead to obvious emotional problems within the individual. André Dupras cites reference that states homosexuals who do not fully accept their condition generally have weak self-esteem, are depressed, and feel lonely. Those who accept their homosexuality however share a stronger sense of self (23). There is evidence to suggest that homophobic homosexuals are aware of how others negatively perceive their homosexuality, and therefore how this awareness contributes to the way in which they see themselves. Homophobic homosexuals may not want to see themselves as homosexual and commonly see their condition as something that is beyond their control (27). Dupras shows that these individuals rate higher in areas such as "sexual depression, sexual anxiety, fear of sexuality, and concern about sexual image [and lower in] internal sexual control, sexual esteem, and sexual satisfaction" (26).

For high school students, this internal self-hatred is more of a problem because no one else is providing support. It is easy to see if one does not believe in him/herself, high school is probably not going to be the place to reverse that opinion. Smith argues that the realization of being gay coming at the same time as abuse due to the simple fact that homosexual students are 'different' shapes negative conscious self-opinion (322). His respondents said that being gay was never talked about as being a positive thing in high school: "...I did know, sort of, that I wasn't heterosexual, but I didn't think I was gay because I had, well from school as well as from home, a very negative idea about what gay people were, and so I didn't think I could be so bad and evil as they said that gay people were" (322).

As R. W. Connell points out, gay males face an additional problem in their self-acceptance, which deals with the (re-)definition of masculinity (which will be discussed in more detail later). Connell claims that "men who have sex with men...face structurally-induced conflicts about masculinity--conflicts between their sexuality and their social presence as men, about the meaning of their choice of sexual object, and in their construction of relationships with women and with heterosexual men" (737). Masculinity construction is a complex subject in that all gay men at one time or another were connected with the hegemony, that is, before they were 'out'. Through the process of coming out, society moves them out of a dominant role. The fact that they have been pushed away from this massively publicized culture begs for opposition (Connell 742). The stereotype that all gay men are effeminate is derived directly from this separation from the hegemonic masculinity they are 'denying'.

The Other Side of the Story

At times, especially with internalized homophobia which we just looked at, the boundaries as to what is a 'cause' and what is an 'effect' become blurred. Homosexuality continues to be thought of by society as a condition in which a cause must be found. Interestingly however, society never sees itself as a 'cause' (Connell 737). That is to say that by viewing homosexuals as deviants from the 'norm', the heterosexist society has, in an essence, created homosexuality. Possibly even more so then society as a whole, the homophobic individual seems to be more adamant about the fact that there is 'something wrong' with homosexuals. Ironically, Connell cites research by Martin Weinberg that concludes that in the 1970s therapists found no particular pathology among homosexuals, but did among some homophobic individuals! (737) I might at this point turn the ever-asked question around by not asking what is the cause of homosexuality, but: What is the cause of homophobia?

As I have already stated, much of the research I found to help with this paper dealt with males in relation to homosexuality and homophobia, and left females out completely. This result comes from the observation that men are more homophobic then women, therefore studying female homophobia--in some regards--seems counterproductive. There is research to support this notion. Recall the earlier discussion of Ferraro and Dukart's study in regards to college students' negativity towards homosexuals. They showed that first-year students were more homophobic than upper class students were and that first-year men were more homophobic than first-year women (156). In the students interviewed by Smith he states that none of his respondents said they were verbally abused by women about their homosexuality (327). Also, in a study I ran across that does not directly discuss homophobia, Gary Remafedi shows that of the gay youth who attempt suicide, males are more likely than females (1291). If we can assume that these attempts are in part due to external negativity and/or self-hatred, it would seem that gay males are more effected by homophobia then lesbians as well.

Heaven and Oxman found that stereotypes of gay males by men were due to gender, whereas male opposition of lesbians was due to standard gay stereotypes (116). As a result, "[m]en more then women, it would seem, view male homosexuality as a threat to their 'maleness' and the accepted male sex-role" (116). The researchers cite further work that point to similar findings. Both men and women consider male homosexuality deviant behavior as it goes against what society considers normal behavior. Heaven and Oxman suggest (although state that they have no empirical evidence to prove) that public display of affection by two men is less accepted then heterosexual affection of affection between two women (116). This is clearly visible in everyday society. For example, it is much more common to see two straight women hug in public than two straight males. In fact if two straight males are seen hugging in public, more than likely they probably would not be viewed as straight. In part this could be explained by the fact that men seem to feel that they have to continually prove that they are not gay, to be perceived as heterosexual.

Why is it though that males--especially homophobic males--feel they need to prove they are not gay? One theory as to a cause of homophobia, which was supported in numerous studies, was that homophobic males actually harbor repressed homosexual urges themselves. They are fearful of being, or becoming, a homosexual: "when placed in a situation that threatens to excite their own unwanted homosexual thoughts, they overact with panic or anger" (qtd. in Adams 441). By proving to society that they are not gay, they deny the inner intuition that they are. However, in spite of the numerous pieces of evidence to support this hypothesis, none of the research could be considered conclusive, as they all show.

Mary Kite studied the differences to males' reactions--both homophobic and non-homophobic--to gay males and lesbians. She found that when interacting with another male (homosexual or not), homophobic straight men tend to present characteristics of themselves that focus on their masculinity (1224). Similarly, homophobic men did not share with either gay men or lesbians any information that they might have in common, for example, athletics, age, and major course of study (1234). In the study if a person was known to be homosexual--as opposed to not knowing one way or the other--he/she was viewed less positively in general (1229); Kite states that only homophobic men "evaluated homosexuals more harshly then people whose sexual orientation was unstated" (1233). In this case, it did not matter whether the individual was a gay male or lesbian. Both homophobic and non-homophobic men viewed gay males more negatively than lesbians. The "negative affect measure...represents emotions such as ashamed, disgusted, and tense" (1233), therefore, if men fear or are disgusted by gay men due to their own possible homosexual desire, it would make since that the negative affect measure would be higher. Kite also cites research that explains the results in another way: "Reactions to same-sex homosexuals are related to their attitude towards contact with same-sex others [and the] suggestion that men's negative attitudes towards gay males stem from anxieties about the male role" (emphasis added 1233).

Ferraro and Dukart did an interesting study that tested individuals' degrees of homophobia against response time to sentences that varied in their provocativeness in regards to homophobic issues. The researchers felt that those individuals with a high degree of homophobia would have a faster reaction time to the highly provocative sentences. This would confirm the hypothesis that homophobic individuals would be expected to "automatically activate" their stereotypes under these conditions (160). What was found however was that, in general, the more homophobic the individual, the slower the reaction time. This seems to point to the theory that one may actually react slower to relevant information (e.g. it may take one longer to respond to a test question on familiar material, in order to assure the correct answer, but if one knew nothing at all about the question it would be an immediate response to skip it), which implies that homophobic individuals may be somewhat self-conscious or reserved in their responses (160). As in the pervious study, there is evidence to deny this conclusion as well. Ferraro and Dukart cite work that would argues that upon viewing a provocative sentence, experience and observation--and their recollections--are called into memory. Homophobic individuals have retained a large amount of negative information towards homosexuals. When 'reminded' of this fact, all the negative information becomes available to process for a response. The more information, the longer it takes. This would also explain why the non-homophobic individuals--who have less information to process--had faster response times (160).

Probably the most interesting of all the research I found came from Henry Adams, Lester Wright, and Bethany Lohr. Men were rated to determine their 'straightness' and their degree of homophobia. Those men who rated high on the heterosexual scale were shown four minute clips of three "sexually explicit" videos, one heterosexual, one lesbian, and one male homosexual. The subjects' degree of arousal was measured in terms of penile circumference/erection (penile plethysmorgraphy) (441). Differences in arousal between homophobic and non-homophobic men were minimal in regards to both the straight and lesbian videos. However, homophobic individuals were significantly more aroused in watching the male homosexual video then the non-homophobic men. This supports the notion that homophobia is a result of repressed homosexual urges. On the other hand, Adams, et al, also note that seeing the male homosexual video may have caused increased negative emotions and anxiety in homophobic men. As anxiety has been shown to induce erection, this theory could also be supported by the results (442-443). As a secondary goal, Adams, et al, tested general hostility of homophobic and non-homophobic men, presuming that homophobic men may be more hostile in general. The results showed this not to be true and that the two groups do not differ in hostility (Adams 443). 

Although hostility did not pan out as a cause of homophobia, a somewhat related topic, that of masculinity, faired better. Connell--who we looked at briefly before in regards to homosexuals' internal conflicts--summarizes the "moments" of the individuals he interviewed as: "(1) an engagement with hegemonic masculinity, (2) a closure of sexuality around relationships with men, and (3) participation in the collective practices of a gay community" (747). It is the first of these three things, the fact that gay men were once connected with all other men through masculinity, which 'scares' homophobic males. As a result of the heterosexual hegemony prevalent in Western culture, societal reactions to the juxtaposition of hetero- and homosexual men, in regards to masculinity, are significant. Connell states that "[t]o many people, homosexuality is a negation of masculinity, and homosexual men must be effeminate" (736). He continues with a quote: "to be 'a man' in contemporary American society is to be homophobic..." (qtd. in 736). The fact that homophobia is society's means of controlling standard gender roles is evidence of this fact. Although, as Connell points out, historically masculinity was not a societal 'standard' before the notions of homophobia emerged. Instead, they developed at the same time (736).

The idea that to be gay is to not be masculine is quite ironic. Connell claims that some groups of openly gay men actually emphasize masculinity (737). In my personal view: I'm gay, which means I'm attracted to men--not women. Why would I be attracted to people with feminine qualities, if feminine qualities are normally associated with women? Why would people think that to be gay is to be the negative of masculine? There are no females in a gay male relationship! How can that be anything less than masculine? Quite possibly, it is those who, for one reason or another, fear homosexuals and use this idea if for no other reason than to secure their own masculinity. Connell argues that the cultural comparisons of hegemonic masculinity and homosexual 'masculinity', is, by definition, going to lead to oppressed individuals that identify with the latter (745). Choosing masculinity as a desire socially lessens the masculinity of the person. The heterosexual man desires--exclusively--only the opposite gender and therefore must develop hatred for those men, who share their masculinity, that deny these feelings (Connell 748).

Two more possible causes of homophobia were found in research--religion and the fear of AIDS--and will be discussed briefly here. In terms of religion, Aubyn Fulton studied 176 undergraduates at a Christian institution (ahem...like Wittenberg :)). The study related religious "identity status" with racism and homophobia. The only group of students that consistently responded in the same manner towards blacks and homosexuals were, what Fulton called, "foreclosed individuals" (9) (i.e. those 'forced out' of searching for a religious identity; possibly less mature). In this study, foreclosed individuals were positively correlated with both racism and homophobia (9). All other religious identities, those who have an identity (temporarily), are looking for one, or are not looking for one, varied significantly in terms of attitudes of prejudice towards blacks and gays. The "achieved students" (i.e. those who have found a religious identity) did actually show signs of maturity--that is, religious commitment without negative attitudes towards blacks and gays--but only internally. They were unable to overcome societal attitudes and biases (9).

In regards to the fear of AIDS as a cause of homophobia, Dupras argues that AIDS has caused more people, both socially and internally, to be fearful of homosexuals. The inherent result is a lack of self-respect among homosexuals, which thereby influences their quality of life (23). Dupras also states that three-fourths of the HIV negative men that participated in his survey said that they were worried about AIDS (25). Therefore, it would appear that fear of AIDS is a major origin of internal homophobia. A study by David Miller, Harold Briggs, and Kevin Corcoran show that individuals who voted for legislation limiting the rights of homosexuals had high scores on both the homophobia and fear of AIDS scales. Incidentally, in the same study, individuals who had a gay or lesbian friend scored lower on both the homophobia and fear of AIDS scales (785). 

Can I Go to Bed Yet?

In my own observation, homophobia has taken on many forms. We have the high school friend who was afraid of being called gay himself if he were to hang around with me (remember the kid we called Josh?), the rest of the high school for making Josh feel that way, my freshman roommate in college who does not speak to me anymore because I told him that I am gay, the male friends who would rather me not tell them if I think a particular guy I see is 'cute', and myself who might try to act like he's not gay around an unattractive effeminate gay male who fears may ask him out. In all of these cases--and in the others we have seen throughout this paper--homophobia separates gay and lesbian individuals from the rest of society. To return to Escoffier for a moment, this is exactly not what homosexuals want.

Although the causes of homophobia are unclear, is does seem likely that the research surveyed here points to--at least in part--to some of the reasons that the fear and hatred of homosexuals is so prevalent in Western society. Marmor states that individuals secure in their gender identity or who are liberal in terms of their religious convictions are less likely to be homophobic than not. However, he argues that probably the most significant reason for homophobic attitudes stems from the assumption that homosexuality is something that is freely chosen or that is "caught" from another homosexual (19). Whether it is a misperception of homosexuality or a fear of repressed homosexual urges, the heterosexual homophobic society will continue to shape the perception of homosexuality. Connell states that the men he interviewed "[take] it for granted that they live in a homophobic environment" (745). Unfortunately given our current heterosexual and masculine hegemonies, the environment does not appear to be changing too rapidly.

Bibliography

Aberson, Christopher, L., D. Joye Swan, and Eric P. Emerson. "Covert Discrimination Against Gay Men by U.S. College Students." The Journal of Social Psychology 139.3 (1999): 323-334.

Adams, Henry E., Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr. "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105.3 (1996): 440-445.

Brogan, Donna J., et al. "Harassment of Lesbians as Medical Students and Physicians." JAMA 282.13 (1999): 1290+.

Connell, R. W. "A Very Straight Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual Experience, and the Dynamics of Gender." American Sociological Review 57.6 (1992): 735-751.

Dupras, André. "Internalized Homophobia and Psychosexual Adjustment Among Gay Men." Psychological Reports 75 (1994): 23-28.

Escoffier, Jeffery. American Homo: Community and Perversity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

Ferraro, F. Richard and Amy Dukart. "Cognitive Inhibition in Individuals." Journal of Clinical Psychology 54.2 (1998): 155-162.

Fulton, Aubyn S. "Identity Status, Religious Orientation, and Prejudice." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 26.1 (1997) 1-11.

Heaven, Patrick C.L. and Lisa N. Oxman. "Human Values, Conservatism and Stereotypes of Homosexuals." Personality and Individual Differences 27 (1999): 109-118.

Kite, Mary E. "Individual Differences in Males' Reactions to Gay Males and Lesbians." Journal of Applied Social Psychology 22.15 (1992): 1222-1239.

Marmor, Judd. "Overview: The Multiple Roots of Homosexual Behavior." Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal. Ed. Judd Marmor. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1980.

Miller, David B., Harold Briggs, and Kevin Corcoran. "Fear of AIDS and Homophobia Scales: Additional Estimates of Reliability and Validity." Psychological Reports 81 (1997): 783-786.

Remafedi, Gary. "Sexual Orientation and Youth Suicide." JAMA 282.13 (1999): 1291.

Smith, George W. "The Ideology of 'Fag': The School Experience of Gay Students." The Sociological Quarterly 39.2 (1998): 309-335.

Weinberg, Martin S. and Colin J. Williams. Male Homosexuals: Their Problems and Adaptations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.