BTW, how comes certain omnivores dislike vegetarians so much? All other things being equal, one fewer person eating meat will reduce its price, about which a meat-eater should be glad.
Vegetarianism generally includes moral claims as well as preference claims, and responding negatively to conflicting morals is fairly common. Even responding negatively to conflicting preference claims is common. This seems to happen for both tribal reasons (different tastes in music) and possibly practical reasons (drinkers disliking non-drinkers at a party, possibly because of the asymmetric lowering of boundaries).
Similarly, why do certain straight men dislike gay men that much?
Simple tribalism is one explanation. It also seems likely to me that homophobia is a fitness advantage for men in the presence of bisexual / homosexual men. There’s also some evidence that, of men who claim to be straight, increased stated distaste for homosexuals is associated with increased sexual arousal by men, which fits neatly with the previous statement- someone at higher risk of pursuing infertile / socially costly relationships should be expected to spend more effort in avoiding them.
(Indeed, I was going to mention religion, but I forgot to. OTOH, I think I’ve met at least one otherwise quite contrarian person who was homophobic.)
It also seems likely to me that homophobia is a fitness advantage for men in the presence of bisexual / homosexual men.
How so? By encouraging other men to pursue heterosexual relationships, I would increase the demand of straight women and the supply of straight men, which (so long as I’m a straight man myself and the supply of straight women isn’t much larger than that of straight men) doesn’t sound (from a selfish point of view) like a good thing.
[The first time I wrote this paragraph it pattern-matched sexism because it talked about women as a commodity, so I’ve edited it so that it talks about both women and men as commodity, so if anything it now pattern-matches extreme cynicism; and I’m OK with that.]
There’s also some evidence that, of men who claim to be straight, increased stated distaste for homosexuals is associated with increased sexual arousal by men,
I’ve heard that cliché, but I had assumed that it was (at least in part) something someone made up to take the piss out of homophobes. Any links?
I mean in the “revulsion to same sex attraction” sense, not the “opposed to gay rights” sense. If a man is receptive to the sexual interest of other men, that makes him less likely to have a relationship with a woman, and thus less likely to have children, and thus is a fitness penalty, and so a revulsion that protects against that seems like a fitness advantage.
Vegetarianism generally includes moral claims as well as preference claims, and responding negatively to conflicting morals is fairly common. Even responding negatively to conflicting preference claims is common. This seems to happen for both tribal reasons (different tastes in music) and possibly practical reasons (drinkers disliking non-drinkers at a party, possibly because of the asymmetric lowering of boundaries).
Simple tribalism is one explanation. It also seems likely to me that homophobia is a fitness advantage for men in the presence of bisexual / homosexual men. There’s also some evidence that, of men who claim to be straight, increased stated distaste for homosexuals is associated with increased sexual arousal by men, which fits neatly with the previous statement- someone at higher risk of pursuing infertile / socially costly relationships should be expected to spend more effort in avoiding them.
(Indeed, I was going to mention religion, but I forgot to. OTOH, I think I’ve met at least one otherwise quite contrarian person who was homophobic.)
How so? By encouraging other men to pursue heterosexual relationships, I would increase the demand of straight women and the supply of straight men, which (so long as I’m a straight man myself and the supply of straight women isn’t much larger than that of straight men) doesn’t sound (from a selfish point of view) like a good thing.
[The first time I wrote this paragraph it pattern-matched sexism because it talked about women as a commodity, so I’ve edited it so that it talks about both women and men as commodity, so if anything it now pattern-matches extreme cynicism; and I’m OK with that.]
I’ve heard that cliché, but I had assumed that it was (at least in part) something someone made up to take the piss out of homophobes. Any links?
I mean in the “revulsion to same sex attraction” sense, not the “opposed to gay rights” sense. If a man is receptive to the sexual interest of other men, that makes him less likely to have a relationship with a woman, and thus less likely to have children, and thus is a fitness penalty, and so a revulsion that protects against that seems like a fitness advantage.
Here’s one.
I was thinking about straight men who dislike gay men whether or not they have been hit on by them.
Thanks for the link.
(Anyway… Is someone downvoting this entire subthread?)