Many homophic Republicans are closeted homosexuals

[CrakHoBarbie]

We all know the vast majority of maga Republicans are homophopes and transphobes.

Empirical studies confirm, many homophobes are actually closeted gays themselves.

 Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Ain't that a hoot?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjynqehsbGIAxXmMUQIHaY8C18QFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Facademic.oup.com%2Fsf%2Farticle%2F97%2F3%2F1067%2F5045222&usg=AOvVaw2-EZntCscJD0p6iK8ELc5G&opi=89978449

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZhtOAsrGIAxUxhe4BHX1aNcA4ChAWegQIBhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fabs%2Fpii%2FS0092656606000080&usg=AOvVaw2deHZi91O6f3Mi6kMlBkQo&opi=89978449

Edited September 7, 2024 by CrakHoBarbie

[Michael Hardner]

What about a study that says Republicans are homophobic? 

 

And again, observations aren't that useful in this arena, unless you're marketing.

In other words, the ad you're planning for hunting rifles probably shouldn't include Thom of Finland type guys posing in baby blue short shorts.

[gatomontes99]

This study is infamous. It was debunked because it was determined the men that reported homophobic feelings were acutely aware of their erection being monitored. It was the Streisand Effect for erections. Knowing they were being watched, they tried to prevent erection and that caused erection.

It was termed misappropriation of erection and stands as a prime example of how a study can be inaccurate. We studied it in Psychology in college.

It is a bit troubling that the study remains listed by the government without a note to indicate the study was determined to be inaccurate.

[Nationalist]

21 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

We all know the vast majority of maga Republicans are homophopes and transphobes.

Empirical studies confirm, many homophobes are actually closeted gays themselves.

 Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.

Ain't that a hoot?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8772014/

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjynqehsbGIAxXmMUQIHaY8C18QFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Facademic.oup.com%2Fsf%2Farticle%2F97%2F3%2F1067%2F5045222&usg=AOvVaw2-EZntCscJD0p6iK8ELc5G&opi=89978449

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiZhtOAsrGIAxUxhe4BHX1aNcA4ChAWegQIBhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fabs%2Fpii%2FS0092656606000080&usg=AOvVaw2deHZi91O6f3Mi6kMlBkQo&opi=89978449

Well now...this has been a waste of bandwidth. 

[Michael Hardner]

42 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Well now...this has been a waste of bandwidth. 

In terms of studying applications of statistical correlation, it's a great match to the earlier post about neurotic Democrats

[herbie]

I sort of concur with that. Not homosexual per se, but so deeply brainwashed with fear that they might be because they've had 'impure thoughts' but never acted on them.
Would explain their utter fascination with the subject.

Never bothered about gay men because 'they weren't fishing in my pond' and lesbians - well who can't appreciate anyone who also likes ****?
Like HTG if your gf wants to bring her cute friend into your bed for some playtime and that disgusts you, then you're the sicko.

[Nationalist]

41 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

In terms of studying applications of statistical correlation, it's a great match to the earlier post about neurotic Democrats

Mike...please...

1. There are closet gays of all walks. "Many" are from all walks of life. The premise is asinine. 

2. Now all of the sudden sexual preference is something to be ashamed of for Libbies? This is one of the reasons Libbies are so distrusted. They have no moral grounding.  

[CrakHoBarbie]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

This study is infamous. It was debunked because it was determined the men that reported homophobic feelings were acutely aware of their erection being monitored. It was the Streisand Effect for erections. Knowing they were being watched, they tried to prevent erection and that caused erection.

It was termed misappropriation of erection and stands as a prime example of how a study can be inaccurate. We studied it in Psychology in college.

It is a bit troubling that the study remains listed by the government without a note to indicate the study was determined to be inaccurate.

"This" study?

Which one?

There are multiple.

And they all come to the same, hilarious conclusion. 

So my question for you is, do you have homosexual tendencies?

Because, I like my men with a little meat in their glory holes.... if you get my drift....

53 minutes ago, herbie said:

I sort of concur with that. Not homosexual per se, but so deeply brainwashed with fear that they might be because they've had 'impure thoughts' but never acted on them.
Would explain their utter fascination with the subject.

Never bothered about gay men because 'they weren't fishing in my pond' and lesbians - well who can't appreciate anyone who also likes ****?
Like HTG if your gf wants to bring her cute friend into your bed for some playtime and that disgusts you, then you're the sicko.

Fully agree.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

In terms of studying applications of statistical correlation, it's a great match to the earlier post about neurotic Democrats

Very astute observation. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

"This" study?

Which one?

There are multiple.

And they all come to the same, hilarious conclusion. 

So my question for you is, do you have homosexual tendencies?

Because, I like my men with a little meat in their glory holes.... if you get my drift....

But they came to a different conclusion than you said. Not one of them concluded this was prevelant in republicans. 

In fact - this study would seem to suggest  you were wrong. 

The ‘Global Closet’ is Huge—Vast Majority of World’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Population Hide Orientation, YSPH Study Finds < Yale School of Medicine

So unless you're saying that about 90 percent of all people are republicans.... 

And if you're claiming that most people who are gay or lesbians are democrats then most of those in the closet must be as well  

Ooopsie - looks like you were wrong   

Ain't that a hoot?    

[Legato]

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Very astute observation. 

More like asstute.

 

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

"This" study?

Which one?

There are multiple.

And they all come to the same, hilarious conclusion. 

So my question for you is, do you have homosexual tendencies?

Because, I like my men with a little meat in their glory holes.... if you get my drift....

Wow. You really are insecure about your thesis. Why is that?

FYI, I was talking about the H.E. Adams study.

[CrakHoBarbie]

3 hours ago, Legato said:

More like asstute.

 

You doing lines off gatomontes ass lagato?

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Wow. You really are insecure about your thesis. Why is that?

FYI, I was talking about the H.E. Adams study.

Dispute it with citations kitty.

Edited September 8, 2024 by CrakHoBarbie

[CrakHoBarbie]

12 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

 

Dispute it with citations kitty.

And dont forget to factor in:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjnxZ-f9bGIAxX1LkQIHVPUB-YQFnoECBcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Facademic.oup.com%2Fsf%2Farticle%2F97%2F3%2F1067%2F5045222&usg=AOvVaw2-EZntCscJD0p6iK8ELc5G&opi=89978449

 

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1067/5045222

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiqiIHj9bGIAxULBUQIHcymOys4ChAWegQIExAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fabs%2Fpii%2FS0092656606000080&usg=AOvVaw2deHZi91O6f3Mi6kMlBkQo&opi=89978449

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-02599-001

[gatomontes99]

52 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

You doing lines off gatomontes ass fagato?

Dispute it with citations kitty.

You have a real problem with having civil discussians, don't you? Let's drop the name calling and the fake bravado and just discuss the topic.

Let's start with the concept of misinterpretation of arousal:

In psychology, misattribution of arousal is the process whereby people make a mistake in assuming what is causing them to feel aroused. For example, when actually experiencing physiological responses related to fear, people mislabel those responses as romantic arousal. The reason physiological symptoms may be attributed to incorrect stimuli is because many stimuli have similar physiological symptoms such as increased blood pressure or shortness of breath.

There are numerous reasons why a man will get an erection. Anger, fear, and embarrassment are just a few.

Eroticized rage is a fascinating concept.

Emotional Triggers:

Emotional triggers are stimuli that elicit strong emotional reactions. In the context of eroticized rage, certain emotions, particularly anger, may serve as powerful triggers for sexual arousal. Understanding and managing these triggers is crucial in therapeutic interventions.

In other words, if you see something that makes you get angry, you might get an erection.

Misinterpretation of arousal explains why a man who hates homosexuality would become erect when subjected to homosexual porn.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

16 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You have a real problem with having civil discussians, don't you?

On this forum?

I fully abided by the t.o.s. of decorum when I got here.

Then I got attacked and verbally denigrated by every right wing incel here.

Over and over and over.

I didn't start it.

But I have a good time playing catch up with y'all. 

Have I upset the delicate flower that's your psyche?

From what I can tell by our past discussions, your pretty much the same brand of jethro as all the rest of the maga filth here.

But I tell you what, you and I can make an agreement to be civil to one another. 

See how it goes.

Is that acceptable to you?

Edited September 8, 2024 by CrakHoBarbie

[CrakHoBarbie]

32 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

In other words, if you see something that makes you get angry, you might get an erection.

Misinterpretation of arousal explains why a man who hates homosexuality would become erect when subjected to homosexual porn.

 

Absolute nonsense.

Your empirical support is a Wikipedia page?

Oh my.

Have you been getting hard during fistfights again?

You're making this too easy my friend.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwin_Yjqh7KIAxU3LkQIHS_bIQ8QFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.webmd.com%2Fmen%2Fss%2Fslideshow-causes-of-ed&usg=AOvVaw3tI_-nc5dwT5nbmiYtrMWy&opi=89978449

Edited September 8, 2024 by CrakHoBarbie

[gatomontes99]

2 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

On this forum?

I fully abided by the t.o.s. of decorum when I got here.

Then I got attacked and verbally denigrated by every right wing incel here.

Over and over and over.

I didn't start it.

But I have a good time playing catch up with y'all. 

Have I upset the delicate flower that's your psyche?

From what I can tell by our past discussions, your pretty much the same brand of jethro as all the rest of the maga filth here.

But I tell you what, you and I can make an agreement to be civil to one another. 

See how it goes.

Is that acceptable to you?

So far it is a one way problem. I even gave you an opportunity to drop the act and discuss the problem. If you really wanted to be civil you wouldn't have responded with name calling. But you did and then you asked me to be civil. Why? Why not just start? You could have addressed the issues I brought up.

If you want to be civil, go for it. I'm not going to start name calling.

As for all these studies you keep throwing up here:

In Psychology And Other Social Sciences, Many Studies Fail The Reproducibility Test

The reliability of psychological studies was being questioned when I went to school. It was finally studied about a decade ago. The problem with these studies is that they try to isolate and a behavior and a set of circumstances, but the mind is far to complex to isolate to a moment in time.

4 minutes ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

Absolute nonsense.

Your empirical support is a Wikipedia page?

Oh my.

Have you been getting hard during fistfights?

You're making this too easy my friend.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwin_Yjqh7KIAxU3LkQIHS_bIQ8QFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.webmd.com%2Fmen%2Fss%2Fslideshow-causes-of-ed&usg=AOvVaw3tI_-nc5dwT5nbmiYtrMWy&opi=89978449

You couldn't do it, could you?

[CrakHoBarbie]

Just now, gatomontes99 said:

So far it is a one way problem. I even gave you an opportunity to drop the act and discuss the problem. If you really wanted to be civil you wouldn't have responded with name calling. But you did and then you asked me to be civil. Why? Why not just start? You could have addressed the issues I brought up.

If you want to be civil, go for it. I'm not going to start name calling.

As for all these studies you keep throwing up here:

In Psychology And Other Social Sciences, Many Studies Fail The Reproducibility Test

The reliability of psychological studies was being questioned when I went to school. It was finally studied about a decade ago. The problem with these studies is that they try to isolate and a behavior and a set of circumstances, but the mind is far to complex to isolate to a moment in time.

So no?

I do love how you actually believe it's perfectly normal for a hetro male to get an erection watching gay porn.

You are certainly a hoot.

Edited September 8, 2024 by CrakHoBarbie

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

So no?

 

I don't do this often, but @CrakHoBarbie is clearly not here to have a reasonable conversation. You are blocked.

[CrakHoBarbie]

2 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

I don't do this often, but @CrakHoBarbie is clearly not here to have a reasonable conversation. You are blocked.

I'll alert the media.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, CrakHoBarbie said:

You doing lines off gatomontes ass lagato?

Dispute it with citations kitty.

ALready done. I notice you ignored that.   LOL don't feel like responding to posts when they have cites and facts i take it?

[Hodad]

7 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Mike...please...

1. There are closet gays of all walks. "Many" are from all walks of life. The premise is asinine. 

2. Now all of the sudden sexual preference is something to be ashamed of for Libbies? This is one of the reasons Libbies are so distrusted. They have no moral grounding.  

There are homosexuals from all walks of life. Those who grow and live in social environments dominated by conservative politics and religious fundamentalism--both of which are hostile to homosexuals--are much more likely to remain closeted. 

In a social setting that is tolerant and welcoming to unharmful diversity, there is no reason to stay in the closet.

Ergo, the premise that there are more closeted homosexuals in the Republican milieu makes perfect sense. 

[herbie]

OMG OMG I used a bathroom in a Vietnamese cafe that was unisex!
What if a tranny used it before me and I caught gayness from the toilet seat?
The horror, the horror!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

ALready done. I notice you ignored that.

She's looking for easy targets, to get her/his/their rocks off. 

This wasn't open for debate from the onset, as actual debate isn't something they are good at.

They blocked me, when they couldn't sustain the heat of debate, or having their logic picked apart.

This is just them telling themselves they are getting revenge on a group of people and being above them, yet still participating within it, poorly at best.

Kind of like that lifer entry level co-worker, that throws dirt on your name because you were promoted to management.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

OMG OMG I used a bathroom in a Vietnamese cafe that was unisex!

Is that what the kids call playing with yourself these days? Unisex?