It's certainly *part* of homophobia, but it doesn't explain all of it. What to say of homophobic women? Are they simply adhering to the male fear, and revolted because the men they learned to see as predators have been demoted? And how about lesbophobia? I think the issue is far more complex.

I really don't believe you nailed this one. Even in areas with higher than average gay populations like sections of Manhattan I have never had the experience you're referring to and I've lived in the general NYC area more than 50 years. I don't think gay men would feel comfortable--or safe--leering at straights like the lounge lizards you're talking about.

It also seems that homophobia (actual fear of gays) is dissipating. Acceptance is in. There is something very liberating in not having to spend personal energy on fear and hate that people seem very attracted to. American society is moving into a much better place here, more so than many other countries.

This hypothesis doesn't resonate with any experience I've had at all. Thinking back to all the times I've been physically or verbally attacked for being queer (yes, they are numerous), the one factor that they all have in common is that I had not spoken to or even so much as looked at the perpetrator. Not a single case was "provoked" by someone being made to feel like a piece of ass. I'd suggest that we regard the fear of homosexual predation as a very specific anxiety - a subcategory of homophobia, perhaps, but in no way representative of the big picture.

The thing about homophobia is that it's almost never based upon actual interactions with gay people. We don't have a trend of guys who were once perfectly open-minded suddenly developing hatred of queer people when they think some dude is checking out their butt. To the contrary, all the actual research (some of which has been posted on this very blog) points to the fact that direct interaction with gay people leads to greater acceptance of homosexuality - despite the fact that with that increased interaction comes the increased odds that some dude is actually checking out your butt.

(Men, by the way, have far less social training in being regarded as sex objects, and are therefore have a harder time perceiving signals of another's desire, making it unlikely that we'd pick up on most of the occasions when we're being glared at.)

Unfortunately, the word "homophobia" is most frequently used to describe a cultural aversion to gay people - an established, conditioned norm. Its usage in this post suggests a more literal interpretation: an individual person's irrational and acute fear of homosexuals - essentially a medical condition. The two meanings of the word are irreconcilable. I'd personally prefer that we retire "homophobia" as a political term and acknowledge what is actually taking place (be it prejudice, intolerance, discrimination, violence, etc) rather than making a broad, phony clinical diagnosis.

Interesting theory. That must explain why the more gay people one is exposed to the less tolerant they are of gay people.

Oh, wait...

Then it must explain why you don't see men spending lots of time at the gym blasting their muscles and doing squats in order to developed a toned, muscular butt for others to stare at. Otherwise they would feel terrible when people they wouldn't want to have sex with (be it unattractive members of the sex they are attracted to or members of the the sex they aren't attracted to) check them out on the street unsolicited.

Oh, wait...

Tell me again how this theory of yours is in any way similar to the way real people actually behave in the our world, as opposed to the hypothetical conjecture land you've built in your head?

What are you basing your theory on? It comes across bad pop psychology. Also, you're using the word "homophobia" way too literally. Homophobia means "fear of sameness" or "flight from sameness", and that's not even getting into the numerous contextual meanings of "fear". The word's literal meaning has little to do with the politicized and cultural dimensions of homophobia. In fact, it contradicts the real-life implications of discrimination and prejudice, which are rooted in concepts of difference. You're incorrectly dabbling in semantics, no wonder your theory is so clunky.

It seems more likely (at least to me) that straight male fear of gay or bisexual male sexual attention would be a symptom of homophobia, rather than a cause? There's also the matter of female fear and/or disgust toward gay and bisexual men, as well as lesbophobia and woman-focused biphobia from people of all genders.

That being said, I wonder if fear of sexual predation accounts for straight male homophobia / male-focused biphobia in some (not all) cases. Some of the first homophobic sentiment I ever encountered (primarily from straight boys and men) was centered on stereotypes of gay men as hypersexual, exhibitionistic and unable to commit to relationships, as well as stereotypes painting gay guys as less masculine (even outright feminine, in some cases). I never heard similar lesbophobic sentiment from girls/women (or boys/men), for what it's worth. I have no way or knowing whether this was a cause or a symptom, so it's all speculation.

Sometimes I wonder if homophobia, both personal and institutional, is "simply" a violent reaction to difference and perceived inferiority or inadequacy – which you could argue is the driving force behind most (if not all) forms of discrimination. Both large and institutionalized (racism, misogyny, as well as homophobia, transphobia and queerphobia in general) as well as smaller-scale, personal microagressions faced by people who fail to conform to the "life script" set forth by society (discrimination against single parents, the voluntarily childless/childfree, people who engage in body modification, people who fail to dress or behave in accordance with gender norms, so on and so forth).

I'd like to know your theories about homophobia against lesbians here. The whole gay rights debate has always been exhaustingly fixated on men, and at this point I think it actually needs to be pointed out that people hate lesbians too, and quite passionately I might add. So what's the mechanic there? Is there any common ground with the hatred fo gay men, or is it an entirely different creature?

I have no theories. All I know is that I have had gay and lesbian friends ever since I first learned of their existence early in high school (1957). I never feared them or any other gay or lesbian person.

"Sometimes I think it’s the moment that men feel what it’s like to be prey."

Do you ever talk to men? I'm sure that's a convenient theory for sociological feminism, but I don't think it has anything to do with reality. Feeling desired, wanted, even like (sexual) prey, if you want to, is pretty much the greatest thing ever, just like it is great for women - IF it's attention from someone you're attracted to. So when you grant the woman in the picture the right to be righteously offended when someone she's not attracted to is checking out her but, when her confronting the middle guy in the cartoon would be welcomed by feminists as a way of expressing her humanity, her personhood, allegedly claiming back the right to determine who's allowed to be aroused by her body, then most certainly that right needs to be extended to the middle guy in the cartoon as well.

Of course, that brings up a logical problem, because you cannot reject objectification of women in the cartoon while at the same time bashing men for being intolerant about being objectified by other men - at least not without a theory about how it's not objectification when the eyes belong to a person whose compound ascriptive opression index is allegedly lower than that of the person allegedly being objectified.

Also, of course, that has pretty much nothing to do with (male) homophobia, which, at the bottom of it, is caused in guys mostly as either uncertainty about their sexuality, their desire to overcompensate attraction to other men, or a need to overcompensate for fear of being considered gay in situations in which being gay is generally assumed to have negative consequences. The latter aspect is the only one that can be addressed by increasing social acceptance of homosexuality, the other two will likely always be present.

Uh, what about female homophobes?

This exact thought occurred to me when I was hanging out with my boyfriend and a bunch of his straight friends.

I suggested going to the local gay bar because it had the best music and cheap drinks.

No, they said.

Why?

Because "those guys won't take no for an answer."

And "they won't stop hitting on me."

And "it makes me feel like a piece of meat."

So yeah.

Well, I guess, speaking as a gay, I've seen men's homophobia come out full force when they learn that I find them sexually attractive, even when they didn't appear outwardly homophobic before.

(Just to be clear, they obtained this information from other people revealing information I had told them in confidence. I wasn't leering at men or telling them I thought they were hot.)

I found this really interesting! Thanks for uploading it. I just wrote a piece along this line in terms of reality t.v, queer melancholia and the hypersexual male. I completely agree with what you're saying here. SO many times have I been looked at in the street with that 'eye raping you glance', and there is many an instance that I've witnessed between homosexual and heterosexual males that is predicated on the power binaries you presented as predator victim. Men feel that the homosexual will objectify them in the way that they objectify women. If anyone wants a quick everyday example of this check out YouTube, The Valleys, Season One, Episode one about 28 minutes in. Theres a group of guys, they're all 'lad's lads', drinking, muscular, whatever. They're getting on great until BOOM, one of the hypersexual males believes he has been tricked because he didnt know one of the other lads was gay. Check it out. Now it doesnt mean that every guy is like that, but hey where theres smoke theres fire. Basically the hypersexual male is taken over by he believes the gay guy will act towards him. Indicating that he believes in regressive role performativity to the extent that his stereotypes misinform him to homosexuals in general.

This is offensive and absurd.

Yes, the struggle for homosexual rights is deeply intertwined with feminism. Yes, homosexuality is an upset to the common gender dynamic. You could even go as far as saying homosexuality demonstrates an emasculation of the male archetype and men, in order to preserve their superior position in the gender hierarchy as well as the security of their own self-identity, try to smother that part of culture, in the same way they tried to smother career women.

When we get sentences like,"So what’s homophobia? Sometimes I think it’s the moment that men feel what it’s like to be prey.", not only does it come off as obviously self-serving and lazy because one couldn't figure out a well reasoned or informed way to bring up this discussion, it also discredits the larger intellectual movement behind these two causes.

Shameful.

As a straight female, I've never in my life felt (or acted like) prey. Just not part of the reality of my experience.

Ugh. Another female academic who blames all the evil in the world on testosterone and phalluses. Certainly there are men out there (of both preferences) who desperately need a little re-training, and some who need a little sharp correction. But it's terribly difficult neither to raise nor to act like a gentleman. Nor are men the only ones taking part in the continuing bad behavior of our tacky age. I look; I also open doors, let ladies out of the elevator first, and stop and say something if I see a guy getting really out of line.

So, lesbians don't experience homophobia?

Funny how Hrostoski made an apology piece for the one quoted in the article (both are quite interesting, and insightful, btw. More than this post, although it does not say much, true)

I agree with the article. This is not the only reason for homophobia, but it is one of the main reasons. This is why sex between women is ok, but the reverse is not. It is not only about being prey, it is about how we perceive sex itself.
It is not true that men want to be objectificated. I've seen men talking about that women don't like to watch men and they feel so good about it, because if women did, then there had to be much more male nudity. If men have to choose between tolerating different sexual interests and women being less excited about men's bodies, they will choose the second. Yes, men's looks is important, but not as much as women's and everybody think that women don't get excited about men's bodies. Men usually believe that if women are attracted to their personality, everything is ok, but sex is a physical thing, and if a person is not attracted to the body it doesn't work. Women generally don't like sex as much as men do. Testosterone may play it's role, but if men really wanted to be more attractive to women, things would be a little different. And it is not about one guy wanting women to like only him, it doesn't work that way, it's about men accepting that women may like things that guys don't like. Every time when sexier guy shows up, men quickly say how gay he was.

Men want women to like what men like, so lesbianism is ok, but it should't be serious, so emotional and physical orientations, which are completely different, are invented and it turns out that women having sex with women are completely heterosexual, despite that sex is on the basis of everything.
Not only that but men think that women being grossed out by their hairy body is natural, not to mention that women are actually hairy too, but in the end women should want to have sex with men, which is absolutely schizophrenic.

This is the biggest objectification and humiliation of women, who seem to accept it pretty well, but are surprised when men treat them with disrespect.

Feminism-
especially the less rigorous third wave variety of the late 90s - like other humanities and social sciences which rely on deconstructivism by-en-large has a tendency to be highly solipsistic and gives a lot of credit to supposed human agency in creating the circumstances of sexual-social interaction, ignoring biology or relegating it to an afterthought. Consequently gender may be socially constructed but the analogy to predator and prey is spurious in my opinion because it does not look at naturalistic arguments for behavior.

Consider that most animals and certainly most mammals far from predating on their mates seek to attract them by proving their worth somehow. Human beings are mammals and therefore it would be fair to say under normal circumstances we too seek mates through attraction. Women seek to attract men and men women in different ways based on what is of the greatest utility to the opposite sex. Undoubtedly some men try to display dominance and some women find it unattractive - compared to say having money - but that does not mean they are predators any more than a silverback gorilla or a bird of paradise diverse as those creatures are.

What the author seems to be doing is conflating one approach to attraction with rape/sexual assault like behavior through the predator analogy because like many feminists she appears to have imbibed the victim mentality of the modern feminist agenda completely. Attraction and being attracted is a fact of life. Undoubtedly there are unpleasant men seeking sexual gratification through unwanted attention, leering and what not, but there are women out there too who are coquettish or play cynical games for material wealth, and let’s not forget some women are quite capable of leering at men too! The men here are either merely complicit or they are suckers but there are few men out to rid woman-kind of its gold diggers or teases. The world is a diverse place and if a man’s biology drives him to stare at a woman’s behind it is not a reason to equate him to a predator and by connection some sort of closet bigot or rapist any more than identifying a sexually confident woman with a slut.

The upshot for this piece is that it really doesn’t say much about homophobia, what it is really saying is that men are mean to women and when they get a taste of their own medicine they don’t like it and the consequence is bigotry against gays and because bigotry/hypocrisy are bad then this sort of male behavior must be bad. The conclusion is therefore aimed at validating a feminist critique of male behavior as bad and not in any way explaining homophobia. It is dog-whistle politics underneath which is the usual one-sided feminist stance which claims to explain gender relations between men and women while containing an opaque contempt for one of the genders. The premise is spurious and it is aimed at upholding what ought to be the elephant in the room for modern feminists, that
their agenda suffers from a degree of man-hating on a primal level.

Ona final note, it never seems to come up that a man may have a problem with homosexual people and the way some of them behave for perfectly legitimate personal reasons that they find it distasteful. Just as a feminist may find aggressive pick up artists and alpha males unappealing. In the end it is a
point of view –maybe born out of ignorance for some – but for others their
distaste is just that. No one deserves to be pilloried for what they believe,
it is their right to be as stupid or enlightened as they wish and because you
dislike anti-gay arguments, many of which I find idiotic too, does not mean you have to equate them to some sort of double standard inherent in male attraction to women and how they act on it, there are after all many homophobic women.

Your theory would seem to suggest that male homophobia is fundamentally rooted in exposure to gay men who behave like your aggressive fraternity brother or the leering guy on the street. I've never once met a gay man who acted like that. The most adamantly homophobic men I've met have had the least exposure to gay male flirting or sexual interest. Men who are the recipients of attention from gay men only express concern about the interaction to the extent that they are homophobic to begin with (i.e. the "prey" experience you describe doesn't seem to increase homophobic thinking). In these cases, the fear has more to do with concern about being lumped in with a stigmatized group, as opposed to being "prey." Women's fear of being prey inherently involves a power dynamic, in which men have more social and physical power--straight men do not have that same power dynamic vis a vis gay men. Homophobic men stereotype gay men as weak and effeminate. It also goes without saying that gay men have less social power. Therefore, gay men present no real threat of making the (self-perceived) super masculine homophobe "prey." There may be occasions in which homophobia is linked to a concern with being prey (e.g., the highly unfunny but horribly common prison rape trope), but these are not common at all.

The biggest issues in the context you describe seem to be that the homophobe is either worried that a) attention from a gay man means that others perceive the homophobic man as gay or b) an encounter with a gay man will reveal a latent sexual interest in gay men that the homophobe would rather not confront. In either case, the fear is not related to the gay man as predator, per se, but rather, with the threat of becoming part of a socially stigmatized group. To clarify, there are certainly major issues of straight male privilege underlying homophobia, but I can't see them being even remotely related to the mechanism you're proposing.

You have a doctorate in sociology. Since when do theories of phenomena such as homophobia begin with "sometimes I think" and move on to exactly no evidence whatsoever? This would be fine if you were an essayist musing about your navel and its opinions on gay-straight relationships, but you're not, and you should know better.

Done a lot of staring at straight men. A LOT. And while, when I'm gazing too long, some of them give the impression that they don't quite know what I'm looking at (do I recognise them? Have they got something on their face?) Perhaps one has reacted with "what you staring at?", but that seemed to be a response to a straight-type power play. Oh, another one thought I was being racist (cute Indian.)
Your theory works in principle, but I have no evidence for it being true in practice.

this was horribly written, especially for someone with a phd holy fuck how did you ever get a phd

lmao im straight and i usually chase after girls alot but ive worked and just been around hundreds of gay people, i used to work on church street in toronto ontario and honestly i had more fun being chased than having to do the chasing, alot more fun like holy shit women have it so fucking easy they dont even realise how fucking easy they have it, they have it so fucking easy they think they have it hard lmfao how much do you get paid... you do not deserve whatever the fuck it is you get paid

What a terrible "theory." It's completely unoriginal, must have heard at least 3 other people muse on this. Second, its implying that gay men are at fault for homophobia. "They're just doing what you do to women, so HAHA! NOW YOU SEE!" How ridiculous. Homophobia is just that, it's a phobia. People irrationally see gays as deviants and therefore unstable and dangerous. All this ridiculous theory exists to prove is something about the way we treat women. Which, how selfish and thoughtless to just carelessly muse on the plight of a seriously disadvantaged group just to make some hokey point about the battle of the sexes.

Wouldn't that indicate that no women are homophobic?

It's an interesting discussion, but I'm not there yet. What would this say about heterosexual men who are not homophobic? I for one, when put in this scenario, have felt flattered, or even a boost of confidence, but with my "male-privileged" bias, I've only felt positive energy from being sexually objectified. I also ask, what does your theory say about homophobic women? Or about homosexual women who fit the role of the "predator"?

I'm not sure why none of the comments seem to have pointed out that lesbians are homosexual, too. The above article talks about homophobia, but only in terms of gay men, completely ignoring the homophobia of women. The homophobic population is not entirely male: I think that right there invalidates whatever point is trying to be made about being demoted on the "food" chain, since the article prefaces the theory with the idea that women are already "prey." Why is this article only about homophobic men fearing homosexual men?

I think the term 'sexual energy slime' here is telling. I find it utterly offensive and sexist. The perpetuation of homophobia is rooted in highly defined and rigid gender stereotypes, those who diverge from them are punished. This applies for male and females who are homosexual, amd any males or females who step out of their roles are pilloried as 'gay' , feminine, too butch etc. As these gender roles are analysed and begin to be rejected then homophobia also diminishes.

This article neatly encapsulates why the homophobia narrative is wholly inadequate. First, it assumes, or at best clumsily implies that only men are homophobic. Second, it ignores the inconvenient truth that a small minority of women sexually assault men (or perhaps falls for the offensive belief that men and boys subjected to these crimes enjoy it). Third it predicates the whole discussion on sexual attraction and activity.

For all these reasons, it is vital to move beyond homophobia and talk about heterosexism. The latter makes the assumption of heterosexuality and the privilege this confers on us (I'm heterosexual) the central issue. Also, it makes plain that heterosexual privilege is not the exclusive preserve of predatory men.

That's all good but this explanation can only be PARTIAL. Countless homophobes are women, and countless victims of homophobia are women or nonbinary people.

I have seen this theory before and it is just as male-centered every time. This completely centers men as the only ones who experience the effects of homophobia. I can assure you this is not the case. Lesbians exist and we experience homophobia. The exclusion of lesbian and bi women from this narrative is really offensive.

Maybe women should stop being prey and become the hunter?

The place homophobia displays the most discomfort is from fathers protecting their own sons from perceived predation. Even open-minded straights blanch the most at the idea of their sons going to unsupervised places with male homosexuals.

Whether this has an "evolutionary" basis is probably beside the point.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/03/09/natural-homophobes-evolutionary-psychology-and-antigay-attitudes/

Well, as a man who spent the majority of his life wishing/believing that he was female, I must strenuously object to this "theory".

You're a PhD; let's be honest, this is totally baseless conjecture, not a proper theory--certainly not falsifiable.

Being "objectified" is exactly what I coveted, something that was denied to me as a biological male. In my view, only women had access to the power of being desirable. I wanted that.

Furthermore, I wanted it from women, not men. And still, being desired by men, even unattractive men, was never threatening to me. I was still flattered, even if not interested in becoming sexual.

I am confused as to why this theory focuses exclusively on presumptively heterosexual males attidues towards presumptively homosexual males, with no examination of the discrimination and prejudice women and people of other genders and sexual orientations experience based on their sexual orientation or presumed orientation. Maybe it should be called the little theory of homophobia directed towards men by men? There is a whole bunch of discrimination and prejudice experienced by people of various other genders from people of various other genders.
To focus exclusively on males perhaps reinstates or supports the cultural primacy of men, in that it makes invisible women and those of other genders.

Plus I also agree with David wholeheartedly and have been socialised female. I think it's important to pay heed to the people who experience what you are proporting to analyse. I was raised and socialised female and have always been very interested I. And passionate about feminism. None of us get it right all the time but as he says maybe you need an fairly strong argument to disprove what is lived experience of the issue.

This is idiotic. It does not. Wade does not even consider that homophobia is also directed toward women who are attracted to women and her thesis therein falls apart.

This does not take in to account the fact that homosexuality includes female dyads.

I think the best way to regard this "little theory of homophobia" is as a bit of a joke and a way to draw attention to something else (the male gaze and the nature of male-female sexual interactions in our society) than as a valid hypothesis. I suspect that is, in fact, how it was meant.

On another note: I'd like to read a feminist opinion on that guy this article links to (the "sexual slime" stuff). My instincts on the matter are not very good, but he rather gives off - both in that piece and in the facebook stuff he links to - the air of a gender essentialist "women want to be dominated, want men to lead them" kind of guy.

Romantic love and sexual attraction are not 'nice' and are rarely conducive to kindness, or goodness. most murders are caused by jealousy, which is of course a form of 'love' and the idea that one person can own another. I imagine that very beautiful women live in a sort of distracting hell of mirrors where they delude them selves that they have some 'power' over their admirers, when in fact they are completely enslaved to the male gaze.

I like this idea and I feel it's true, but there's also lots of women who are homophobes.

Men are just doomed in this society. If you show interest in a woman you are a pervert, if you smile at the bar you are scumbag, if you approach a girl at work you violate a taboo. If you keep to yourself you are a pussy, if you simply look at other men you are ..... oh well. Can someone tell me what a guy to do. Wait till a girl walks up to you and say .... Hey dude!! you now have permission to talk to me. Women make the rule lets recognize once and for all the powerful sex here is the female, mentally men are completely overpowered. they shape the conversation and the story and they do it very well. They are just simply smarter, more witty and treacherous.

Oh by the way they simply wear make, tight pant, half open breast, short skirts to scare men off. They are not reverse perverts. Oh, don't give me the argument I already know it, Women can dress as they want and men should learn not to be aroused because God was wrong to create men to get aroused when women wear or do certain things. why God Why , why God did you have to wire men's brain to operate like this. You doomed us.

Homosexuality will be the fastest growing relationship in the next 100 years because more and more men are scared to speak to a woman and more and more women will get tired of the online dating and turn lesbians because men are not showing interest. Keep up the good work America destroy the world with your perverted sense of male/female relationship.

I think most gay men learn to avoid the appearance of sexual harassment. Hetero men at least get to find out how women feel.

In my view most Gay men enjoy sexual attension and energy as joy art and energy.

Its common Gay men check each other out when we pass each other and it occures like this globally too. It's a Gay Male tribal pattern

We celebrate sex appeal and work with it as Gay Men