- Best answers
I actually somewhat agree. There's a lot of circular reasoning in classical (micro)economics. But back on the gay track, my read of (male) homophobia is that very often it's simply, excuse the inconsiderate language, aesthetic revulsion. Not completely unlike when small children are grossed out by any kind of sexually charged activity. Where it comes from, I don't know, but since it's so common, the intuitive explanation is that it's innate, which doesn't necessarily mean it can't be changed, perhaps simply by exposure in reasonable dosage.NUQAR'S Kentucky "Nuqar" James XXL said:...
But the fact that there are societies which have no religious injunctions against homosexuality yet are just as if not more homophobic than the USA should point out that religion is barely a factor. Hinduism has gay porn all over its temples for example, but it is a much worse environment for gay people.
I feel like there is a tendency for a lot of educated people to use oversimplified Darwinist utilitarian logic to try and understand unimaginably complex social phenomena like sexuality and culture. It just falls apart because you assume people will make rational decisions if they have access to all the information, and that anyone who doesn't is "ignorant" or "irrational". The problem is that by doing this you are ignoring the prime motivators behind most people's actions which are psychological. This is why some STEM nerds seem to lose their minds when someone is adamant that the Earth is flat even when they know all the information, because they are assuming that the flat earther's true motivation is the raw information, and not an interwoven web of other psychological and social motivators which are way harder to arrive at logically.
This line of thinking is also why economics is total psuedoscience, but Kurczak is here and she might kill me through the internet, so I'll stop.