Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities desk
< November 4 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 6 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


November 5[edit]

Dine for America[edit]

There were two different Dine for America events. One was done for 9/11. The other was done for Hurricane Katrina. All of the money raised from those two events went to the American Red Cross disater relief efforts. Please note I'm not using this site as a crystal ball or anything like that. But, what I'd like to find out is will another Dine for America event, this time for Hurricane Sandy?142.255.103.121 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you contact the Red Cross? A rep there will gladly give you the address of their corporate office. Write them a letter suggesting it. But do be aware of the criticism they have faced. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jT8b7dms_gADWqtLKJQFzc1Xz0pw?docId=f7ddb41fc2eb4956992b1267ae573fbe. μηδείς (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I did, and they suggested I contact my local American Red Cross chapter. That was no help. I have a feeling the American Red Cross probably might not have time to respond if I write them a letter suggesting a Dine for America event in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.142.255.103.121 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

economic crisis[edit]

If the whole world is in debt, who are they in debt to?

86.15.83.223 (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the world. However, I'm not so sure your assumption is true. Check Balance of trade, for example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the world is, then, if not all. 86.15.83.223 (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Aside: if there is redistribution of wealth, why no redistribution of debt? IIRC, Earth is in $52 trillion debt to our empire while the world's total healthcare deficit is close to $47 trillion. ~AH1 (discuss!) 06:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The IMF is working very hard to redistribute debt to third world nations. :-) StuRat (talk) 07:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You might be interested in the books Whoops! Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay by John Lanchester and Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber. Both of them discuss this question, albeit in different ways. Gabbe (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Every dollar of debt is counted as a dollar of assets by the debt's creditors. To the extent that the debt cannot be repaid, those assets are overvalued. In other words, if we have a real debt crisis, the world is less wealthy than it claims to be. Marco polo (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
But say that I owe a company that owes a company that owes me, and each of these debts is actually first in line - the next time I pay the company it will right away pay the other company that will right away pay me. That doesn't mean I actually have $1 to pay that with, and yet it also doesn't mean that I am "less wealthy" than I claim to be. I suppose this is a circuitous way of saying that in fact a lot of this debt could be unpaid simply due to the velocity of money and transactional friction, as well as liquidity. In other words, if for a moment God allowed an instantaneous great purge, where there were no transaction costs, accounting costs, or delays, and anyone could borrow money out of thin air provided they returned it to thin air at the end of the great purge, then a lot of debt could "pop" out of existence, much like x + 2 = 7 + 2, the 2 term can just "pop" out of both sides and you are left with x=7. So the indebtedness of the world could indeed be instantly reduced without affecting wealth one iota. Perhaps it is simply accounting, liquidity, and so forth, that keeps this from happening. Also the agents might not even want it to happen, for whatever reason. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In your example lets say they are for the same amount: you owe a co. ($1k @ 17%) that owes a co ($1k @ 10%) that owes you ($1k @ 3%) , but see the rates are different? Only the party(s) getting a positive margin (you: -14%, co 1: +7%, co 2: 7%) will want to "keep it separated" yes, offspring. Also if you are borrowing money at 3% but you can put it in a stock that you think will double over the next year, which also happens to owe you in your round-about example you would not want them to cancel the transactions because you want the potential gain. In some cases it is borderline unjust enrichment.165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  • First, not all nations are in debt; second, nations are typically in debt to individual people or to institutions such as banks, not directly to other nations. Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Off topic, unrelated?GeeBIGS (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


OP, by “the whole world,” do you mean governments? If yes, then recognize that governments borrow from people (and institutions). If you mean households, banks or corporations then understand that households (et al) borrow from financial institutions and the public. If you mean all of the above, then consider that I may own a government bond (i.e., I lend to the government), but also have a mortgage. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

denial of authority[edit]

Greetings. While browsing Wikipedia for articles, I was surprised to find that there was no specific article on the "denial of authority". Of course, one may wonder how to reach an objective viewpoint on such a contentious issue, but it is an issue that exists in contemporaneous society. This is not something I/we/humans made up in class one day, and a possible approach to this topic is to analyze the contemporary literature (argument from authority). For instance, it may be plausible to define "authority" and the concept of "power" in human societies, and additionally illustrate power relationships in human dynamics in the study of human beings. There are resources in the areas of cognitive science, theory of mind, social networking, current events, doxology, parent/child relationships, political science, psychology and psychiatry, sleep deprivation, and most notably philosophy, including and up to the philosophy of time. Additionally, we may illustrate how authority and power relationships co-exist on websites like Wikipedia, or on more anarchic anachronisms such as 4chan. While the amount of views on this subject is almost infinite, it likely underlies one of many struggles of the human race. For instance, we may define the denial of authority to be the following:

  • The denial that authority has a right to "control" my behaviour.
  • The denial that authority exists or is capable of doing anything useful.
  • The denial of social classism, such as the refusal to treat a "bully" as a "higher" power.
  • Rebellion in all its various forms.
  • The denial of the message that authority is producing.
  • The denial that said aforementioned message exists.
  • Teenage behaviour.
  • The refusal to accept the "norms" of youth subculture.
  • Denial of cliques
  • The denial of an established scientific, societal, governmental, medical, industrial, psychological, or liturgical authority.
  • The denial of the concept of any of the above.
  • The denial of the following, or labels therein.

If you must inquire as to my motives, I was simply looking to see whether there existed in the human mind an objective quantification of authority and what it means to deny such entity. Also, as the reference desk has historically been intended as a hub to generate ideas for creating articles, my alter-ego wanted to start a discussion that was dissimilar to a debate. Authority, based on the definition, could refer to the status quo (any status quo), the collective manifestation of a group of individuals, unspoken consensus or a silent majority. Wikipedia articles on "soft" subjects are typically quite short. One example, last check about a year ago, was attitude polarization.

Furthermore, in the unlikely event that thou dids't not know how to respond to this thread, one may assume it is from an alien non-human entity resembling a contemporary Jedi, a surrealist proposition, or the effect of sleep deprivation, the last of which is indeed the most accurate. We have excellent articles on specific cases, such as Christopher Smart's asylum confinement, illustrating the vagaries of the human mind, thoughtforms involving existence, and the authorities invoked therein from a moral standpoint. Again, the definitions escape humans, as wars are waged continually for miniscule chaos theory-induced disturbances in the present state. Psychoanalytically, the denial of authority may also involve a "non-seeing-ness" to consequences, psycholinguistic connotations or the product of a delusion (it could also be the undue attribution of bad things happening to good people to a higher order power of some sort, psychological or real), however the latter is defined. According to various definitions, happiness and creativity are essentially psychiatric disorders (this is not a diatribe, and in fact, many previous questioneers have ventured afield to this particular designation). I hope my question is understandable, and whether philosophical thinking is more likely to lead to subhuman neuroses or enlightenment, I do not currently know.

My question: what is the the denial of authority? ~AH1 (discuss!) 06:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The total rejection of any form of authority is anarchy (although that article says it means something else outside the US). StuRat (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
That refers to the rejection of governmental and political authority. It touches very little on the concept of a psychosocial, inter/intra-group conflict or "status quo" authority. Also, I already mentioned the existence of an anarchy.
The position that authority does not exist refers to the idea that it is merely a social construct; that is, there is no direct separating line between an authority and ourselves. That is, it would be possible to talk to an authority as though that authority were one's friend or neighbour (unfortunately, this leads to an infinite regress of what is a friend, what is a neighbour, was is laundry detergent, et cetera). It is plausible that this is one of the premises of the Occupy movement, which demonstrated on our servers that human nature exists. Some other important ideas I did not refer to in my opening paragraph were the concepts of love, justice, responsibility, hyperbole and empathy.
Another example of this behaviour is blaming the system (again, no article). The denial of blaming the system would be the idea that the system is created by ourselves and therefore, is the responsibility of individuals to maintain and construct on a daily basis. Here, I am listing some possible views that humans may have, and not necessarily expounding mine own. Some notable proponents of this school of thought include Leo Tolstoy, psychological defense mechanism Studies and Christology, including opinions hithertofore understandable therein. ~AH1 (discuss!) 06:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You should maybe explore the flip side of your first point: "The denial that I have a right to "control" someone else's behaviour." Ask yourself how well that would work out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Many years ago when I studied Deviance and Society as part of a psychology degree, I came across the work of Howard Becker, specifically The Outsiders: also Emile Durkheim. We do have an article on Social deviance and I wonder if this would be a good starting point. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

psychological foundations of education[edit]

A. explain the development in relation to the psychologists that believe in inheritance and the environment as influencing a person's development. b.How do these issues influences ones teaching in class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.35.41 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

From this, it looks like an aversion to doing one's own homework is quite a common factor in the psychology of education. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It also appears that illiterates are writing the assignments. —Tamfang (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

We have an article Educational psychology; if you have any questions that aren't answered by it, please come back to us. We're not allowed to answer homework assignments directly, but we can help if there are specific issues that need clarification. Alansplodge (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Leo Ryan and Jonestown[edit]

Since I'm currently watching the Seconds from Disaster episode on Jonestown, I have three quick but related questions. Hope there's a Wiki article that can answer them though.

1. Did they ever identify exactly who shot Congressman Leo Ryan to death? If so:

2. Was he/she among those who committed suicide later that day?

3. Did the people of Jonestown commit suicide because of Leo Ryan's assassination/murder?

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Jonestown article you linked to doesn't say who pulled the trigger, so the answers to your first and second questions must be "no" and "no idea" respectively. As for Q3, I would say probably not. There can be no simple answer, since the suicides were inextricably bound up with the personality cult surrounding Jones. --Viennese Waltz 12:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the highly organized nature of the mass suicide, it is quite likely that the cult (or its leaders) had such a suicide planned for some time. So, the circumstances surrounding the Ryan shooting didn't cause the suicide in the sense that it gave everyone that idea, though the timing of the suicide may have been precipitated by the Ryan shooting, although not the shooting specifically: the shooting and mass suicide were likely part of an orchestrated set of events in response to the heavy investigation by both the Guyanese and U.S. governments. The group probably understood the arrival of Ryan to be the start of the end for the cult, and took matters into their own hands from that point forward. That's at least my understanding from reading a few books and seeing a few documentaries on the subject. --Jayron32 12:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Italic text

Well the Seconds from Disaster episode mentioned that a Jonestown "firing squad" was behind the shooting. Has there ever been any evidence as to what happened to its members after the shooting? Has it been proven or not if the "firing squad" members were among those who commited suicide, or did at least one of them escape? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The shots were fired by members of the Jonestown security detail, who were known as the Red Brigade. Our article says, "There were perhaps nine shooters whose identities are not all certainly known, but most sources agree that Joe Wilson, Jones' head of security, Thomas Kice Sr., and Ronnie Dennis were among them." I imagine all three of those named individuals later died from the poisoning. --Viennese Waltz 13:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Locating a last will and testament[edit]

I'm trying to locate a copy of my father's last will and testament, (Theodore C. Ulmer 3rd.). He passed away in April of 2012, in Sarasota Florida. I have been told the will is filed with the county records in Sarasota Fl. but I don't seem to be able to find their listing when I look them up. Thanks for any help, Ted Ulmer 4th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.0.121 (talk) 15:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If he wrote the will with the assistance of an attorney, contact them. They should also have a copy on file. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The website is confusing, but it seems the department that deals with probate is Clerk of the Circuit Court and the phone no. is given as (941) 861-7612. If that fails, there's a general county information line, 941-861-5000. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Vouchers[edit]

What are they talking about this election season regarding 'vouchers' or 'voucher system'? I don't know if it's good or bad because I don't know what it means regarding health care or Social Security benefits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.243.203.146 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This is a reference to Paul Ryan's plan to replace U.S. seniors' entitlement to government-funded Medicare, whose funding rises with healthcare costs, with individual vouchers, whose value would rise with the consumer price index, which historically has risen more slowly than healthcare costs. In effect, unless healthcare costs were restrained by some other mechanism, this would mean that seniors would have to pay more and more out of pocket for healthcare. According to microeconomic theory, a resulting drop in demand for healthcare should slow the rise in healthcare costs, but there would be a loss of access for poorer seniors as a side effect, entailing a likely increase in their death rate. We have an article on The Path to Prosperity, Ryan's name for this plan, whose connection to prosperity is arguable. Marco polo (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
A voucher means you go out and buy something, and they pay for it, up to a certain limit, much like how food stamps work. One problem is that vouchers alone don't mean much. If you currently get $1000 worth of some benefit, and they give you a $500 voucher to obtain the benefit on your own, instead, then that means you are now getting less. If they give you a $2000 voucher, then you are now getting more. It's a bit trickier to figure out if they give you a $1000 voucher, if that is better or worse. In the short term, buying something individually may mean they charge you more, since there isn't the economy of scale available, as there is when millions of people buy something at once, via the government. So, that would make your $1000 voucher worth less. However, in the long term, vouchers may increase competition, which brings prices down, making a $1000 voucher worth more.
Also note that when Republicans offer a voucher system to replace a system they have previously advocated abolishing altogether, this brings up the suspicion, in the minds of many, that this is just a more politically acceptable way for them to abolish it. That is, that the vouchers will then be steadily reduced, and eventually eliminated, without the obvious photo ops for the opposition, like closing state hospitals and evicting patients. (Those hospitals which did close would be due to "insufficient revenue", and it wouldn't be obvious this was a result of reduced voucher payments.) StuRat (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
It is important to note that The Ryan Plan (ie The Path to Prosperity) is NOT what Governor Romney proposes to do if he is elected president. Blueboar (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. In fact, it is entirely unclear what Romney proposes to do if he is elected president, since he has proposed many different, often contradictory things over the course of his campaign. Marco polo (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
If he wins, he will either do what the GOP tells him to, OR he will do what he feels like doing, and in 4 years he'll know how Obama feels currently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Church emphasis on "personal relationship with God"[edit]

Which church denomination or religious movement emphasizes "personal relationship with God", and what does it mean in this context? 140.254.121.43 (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Expressed in that particular terminology (or as "personal relationship with Jesus"), it's a fairly modern Protestant thing. The Campus Crusade for Christ has prominently included slight variants of this in its proselytizing; not sure which other groups also use it... AnonMoos (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The phrase "spiritual laws that govern your relationship with God" occurs in The Four Spiritual Laws... AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I just read The Four Spiritual Laws, and one phrase caught my attention: the part where it said that Evangelical Christians use this gospel tract to explain their faith to non-Evangelical Christians. What is the purpose behind that? I thought Christians, Evangelical or not, would (or at least should) know something about the faith that they adhere to. 140.254.121.43 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The CCC apparently thinks that "cultural Christianity" and "Biblical illiteracy" are much more serious problems than you do... AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I also wish to know which church denomination or religious movement thinks that Jesus is God or the begotten "son of God". 140.254.121.43 (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Answering your second question first, all denominations of orthodox Christianity identifies Jesus as one of the "persons" of God. See Trinity for a fuller explanation. Disagreements over the precise relationship between Jesus, on the one hand, and God, on the other, (or maybe they're the same hand...) has been one of the primary and earliest forms of heresy-creation within Christianity. The Trinity article covers that well. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC) PS: By the way, that's little-o orthodox, as in "generally accepted", not big-O Orthodox. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
What is the significance of getting the precise relationships of the three persons of God? Why not just say that they are all appropriate structures of God? Sort of like resonance. 140.254.121.43 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg
140.254.121.43 -- just look at the diagram... (Insert one half of a smiley symbol here) -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Pick one of the following (or any shade of grey in between) indicators of significance: (a) It is either one of the most important points of difference between the True Believers who will go to Heaven (or at least have a chance of doing so) and the Heretics who are inevitably destined for Hell or (b) it is absolutely of no consequence and perhaps those who fight over it are the ones who are destined for Hell (and that dichotomy begs the question of (c) or it is of no consequence because the Real God is Krishna or Buddha or You or FSM or maybe there is no God or dang straight there is no God). — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Some have decried the whole ancient Homoousianist vs. Homoiousanist controversy as being "over a vowel". However, the number of Christian heretics who were executed as a result of theological disputes which were purely about the Trinity (i.e. which were not also prominently Christological disputes) must be very small (probably negligeable, except perhaps in counter-reformation Hungary)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
How can a dispute about the Trinity not be a Christological dispute? In any case, persecutions by the Roman Empire against heretics were pervasive in the last centuries of the Roman Empire, since Constantine I. Arianism was one of the more prominent heresies, along with monophysitism, nestorianism, dyophysitism, and others I can't remember or name. I don't know how many people were executed due to these heresies, but I'd be surprised if it were "negligible", considering how much of an effect heresies had on imperial policy. --140.180.252.244 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
See filioque, a non-Christological dispute in theology proper. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
140.180.252.24 -- They would be disputes about the separate existence and/or relationships between the persons of the Trinity which did not involve disputes about whether Jesus was human or divine, or had one nature or two natures. In addition to "Filioque", some early transitional forms of historical Unitarianism and modern Oneness Pentecostalism would appear to qualify... AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as 'the only Son, the Lord... God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God'. The Athanasian Creed goes into incredibly lengthy detail about how the persons of the Trinity are similar, yet distinct. The original reason for this emphasis was the massive rift between the Trinitarians and the Arians, who taught that Jesus was not the eternal God at all. The definition adopted at the Council of Chalcedon states that Jesus has two natures, human and divine, and that neither of them abolishes the other. However, the late-classical world in which these definitions were thrashed out used words like 'substance', 'nature' and 'person' in rather different ways to the ways we do. It's hard to reconstruct what the people at those councils thought they meant by all these things. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me be a bit more serious than my last answer, though I did not mean for it to be flippant. One significance of the doctrine is the degree to which believers take the Bible to be explicit versus symbolic. The doctrine arguably evolved from trying to reconcile the references in the Bible to a Father, Son and/or Jesus, and Holy Spirit with the Old Testament notion of a unitary, single God which caused the Jews to be differentiated from their often-polytheistic neighbors. Little-o orthodox Christianity made a big deal of taking the Bible as literally as possible, so if it said that there was a single God as well as a Father, Son and/or Jesus who were also, or at least implied to be, God, then you had to come up with some way of putting all that together. The fact that it was pretty darned difficult is reflected by the fact that the Trinity is regarded in orthodox Christianity as a Sacred mystery, one of those things that mere humans just have to accept and cannot wholly understand. Though there were those who tried to explain it differently than The Official Explanation, they were quickly branded heretics and were largely shuffled off to obscurity (or wiped out). By the time the Protestant Reformation rolled around the doctrine, along with the mystery, was so generally accepted that anyone who questioned it was sidelined by both the Catholics and the Protestants, and then there developed enough different denominations that a little disagreement about the Trinity generally was overlooked until the anti-cult ministries and Religious Right came along and started labeling folks like the Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unitarians, and Jehovah's Witnesses as non-Christian, largely overlooking in the process the folks like the Disciples of Christ and other non-creedal Christians who deny creedal formulas (most creeds grew out of various heresies over the Trinity) without (necessarily) expressly denying the Trinity. You can then lump on top of those various creedal/denominational debates the positions of some modern theologians who say, in effect, "hey, maybe we shouldn't take the Bible so literally, yeah, it's a great book of faith but as a history book or textbook or source of dogmatic theology, eh, not so much". Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So, that means that modern theologians would probably go with the Sacred mystery notion. 140.254.121.43 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think most would because most theologians are from some part of little-o orthodox Christianity, but I'm hardly an expert about the demographics of the whole body of current theologians. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The importance of the doctrine of the Trinity can be seen by reflecting on the difference it makes to various other Christian doctrines. Take the atonement: we were far from God, Jesus died, and (in one way or another) that allowed us to be right with God again. Given the orthodox position that Jesus is God, then the story is one of love and self-sacrifice. If we assume Jesus to be other than God, we are faced with a horrible story about a vengeful god requiring the human sacrifice of an innocent third party. Marnanel (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
"...the word was God... and the word became flesh, and dwelt among us." That's pretty clear. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Live Stream US election[edit]

Dear everyone. Does anyone know where I can watch a livestream internet tomorrow for the US election, when time after time the results are coming in? CNN, ABC or somewhere else? Thanks very much in advance --78.51.38.194 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

This site[1] gives you all the major US channels. A8875 (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The websites of all of the major news networks will have live streaming and commentary. C-SPAN's website says it will provide coverage of returns with little or no commentary, if that is what you want.    → Michael J    03:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Interracial sexual arousal among racists[edit]

I read somewhere that homophobic men are more likely to be sexually aroused by gay porn than non-homophobic straight men.

After all, the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.

So then is it also true that racist men are more likely to be sexually aroused by interracial porn (black men having sex with white women specifically) than non-racist men?

I am genuinely curious about this, I'm not asking this question to be disruptive. Thanks.--Monopoly on Truth (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No. --Malerooster (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) I would question the original premise, actually. It's not the first time I've come across such an assertion, but I've never seen any evidence for it, so do you have any studies that support that claim? And how would you define 'homophobic' (as that is in itself a problematic and loaded term)? I would also disagree and say that hate is indeed the opposite of love. - Lindert (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Have no idea about scientific studies, but there have been some prominent anecdotal incidents... AnonMoos (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Try the following. Homophobia (" self-reported negative affect, avoidance, and aggression toward homosexuals", Bernat, et al., 2001) itself is well-documented and studied. It's controversial only in the sense that most who exhibit it would reject the label because it uses -phobia, the most common objection being "Phobia? I ain't afraid of no dang fairies!". The second study linked below gives an overview for the related body of research.
-- OBSIDIANSOUL 01:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the references. It seems there is indeed some empirical support for the premise, although I would question whether a study with n=29,n=35 can be considered representative. The reason I called the definition 'problematic' (apart from the -phobia issue) is apparent if you read the first sentences of the article homophobia: "Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, and hatred". That's a lot of different definitions, and it makes it far from clear what is actually meant by the term. - Lindert (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
So does racism and most other behaviors that generally fall under the "bigotry" characterization. Personally, I'd restrict it to irrational reactions to homosexuality, but the irrationality itself means it can be manifested to behaviors as different as benign (but obsessive) avoidance to violent aggression. Yes, accusations of homophobia are sometimes bandied about trivially, but that does not mean it can be dismissed just as easily. Latent homosexuality is also, of course, not the only motivator of homophobia. Not by far. The second study linked above also summarizes several of the proposed reasons for violent homophobic behavior, all of which with varying support from different studies: enforcement of the male gender role, thrill seeking, defense motivation, and group dynamics. Latent homosexuality falls under defense motivation. Though again, this only pertains to violent homophobic behavior.
The sample size might also seem small, but as Anonmoos pointed out, its veracity is reflected quite abundantly in real-life high profile examples. I've lost count of the number of anti-gay politicians and prominent religious leaders who have later turned out to be caught in gay scandals or worse. Ted Haggard, of course, is the most famous. Then there's Roy Ashburn, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Michael Berry, Glenn Murphy Jr., Albert Odulele, Greg Davis, Richard Curtis, David Dreier... the list goes on. Admittedly a few may be political assassination, but there are enough of them around (including those ending in convictions) to know its extent. There are even rankings and a website that counts the days since the last one (apparently 188 days, though in fairness Zachary Wyatt seems to be on the list only by virtue of being a Republican, and not for anything truly "anti-gay").
You can even see the twisted common sense truth to it. If you were gay and wished to deny it, what would be the best way to convince the world you weren't? IMO, Haggard summarizes it best: "I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war."
  • Weinstein, N.; Ryan, W. S.; Dehaan, C. R.; Przybylski, A. K.; Legate, N.; Ryan, R. M. (2012). "Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 102 (4): 815–832. PMID 22288529. doi:10.1037/a0026854.  (sample size of 784, 6 studies, 2 countries. 20% correlation result)
Anyway, we're veering off topic. I think the OP's question is quite valid, though I do not know of any studies on it. Personal opinion though: no. The mechanism for "gay homophobes" is the fact that admitting to it carries enormous social stigma. Whereas racism generally does not. i.e. A man who shows a stronger preference for women of other ethnicities has no strong reason to resort to racism to hide it. The closest to sexual attraction would probably be motivated by sexual domination of the perceived "lesser race" (i.e. rape), as Nil Einne pointed out, rather than true sexual attraction. -- OBSIDIANSOUL 15:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
As a reference desk, the idea here is to direct you to the articles that may contain answers to your question rather than to provide an answer directly. Since you've linked the two most likely articles that may contain your answer, and I'm not aware of any more specific article, it would seem you've responded to your own query. NULL talk
edits
23:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This strikes me as asking "So, when did you stop beating your wife?" Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
NULL is quite incorrect in stating that we are supposed to direct people to Wikipedia articles rather than answering questions. The instructions at the top of this page, as well as the Ref Desk guidelines say that we can direct the questioner to article, or to web pages or to reliable sources. Often we find that the most relevant Wikipedia article is lacking some information which can be found in reliable sources, and in the end the article gets improved. Edison (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
By the same token, one wonders if Richard Dawkins secretly loves Jesus? I mean all that vitriol is clearly evidence of something other than atheism.--Scott Mac 00:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Jesus is the spicy meatball at the heart of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Blueboar (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
That's kind of different, because it's not something of a sexual nature unlike my original question.--Monopoly on Truth (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
For another perspective on how Jesus figures in a discussion about gay porn, see The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 01:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I could find is [2] which is not a study but simply a few anecdotal examples. It's perhaps worth considering that these comparisons even if somewhat different from the Richward Dawkins example aren't really that similar. Whereas sex and sexual attraction (between other same sex partners) usually seems to be a significant part of what homophobic people are seemingly afraid of, it may only be a minor portion of what concerns racist. ([3] is interesting.) And AFAIK, there is often a correlation between racism and sexism [4] [5] [6] (also see earlier link & note some of these also note a correlation to homophobia). So while for example a white supremacist may view a white woman having sex (and particularly a long term relationship or getting pregnant) with a black man as disgusting, they may not necessarily see a white man having sex (but probably not a relationship with) with a black woman as necessarily wrong, particularly if the the white man is in a dominant or controlling position. (It's not that hard to find stories of white supremacists raping black women. The fact that this seems to run counter to the notion of the black brute isn't something they seem to care about.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that seemed to be the single most on-topic response here. Again, if you're not American, like I am, then it's even harder to find relevant information on this topic! Almost all the literature dealing with, say, black-white relations comes from the USA, and as Morrissey once sang, America is not the world... --Monopoly on Truth (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

To everyone not taking the premise of this question seriously, [it's an entire field of psychological study. Many studies have come to this conclusion, although some disagree, and there's a lot of disagreement over what it means. I tried looking for something comparable, studies on the unvoiced sexual preferences of racists, but I haven't found any. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A type of forbidden fruit, taboo, naughty etc ... ≠isn't it obvious?GeeBIGS (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

She Thinks My Tractor's Sexy Bus stop (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)