Double Standards

Jason Akermanis – a very talented AFL footballer with a ready opinion – has been getting a lot of stick over an oped he wrote during the week saying that AFL wasn’t ready for any of its players to ‘come out of the closet’.* That expression refers to talking in public about your sexual preferences. There is something to be said for the phrases ‘privacy’ and ‘mind your own business’. But be that as it may.

At the same time we’ve seen a NSW minister having to resign his job after being filmed leaving a gay sauna establishment. So he drove his government provided car to the place. So what? Nobody would complain if he drove to the milkbar, or if he had driven to the late night pharmacy, so why does anyone care that he drove to a sauna? Should transport ministers have cars at all, as opposed to having to use public transport? There are good reasons why he should have lost job.

“Whether it is the failed Sydney metro, the botched MyZone fare restructure or the monstrous new car tax on families, it is clear that David Campbell is not up to the job,” Nationals Leader Andrew Stoner told Parliament last month.

But this way is very grubby and very wrong.

* In fairness to Akermanis, I think he was trying to be more nuanced than he has been given credit for.

For some reason I felt uncomfortable, so I left. I am sure most players these days would do the same.
I know he wasn’t about to try and convert me to his way of thinking, but I was uncomfortable all the same.
What I should have done was to sit down and talk with him in an attempt to understand his life.

I know there are many who think a public AFL outing would break down homophobia, but they don’t live in football clubs. It’s not the job of the minority to make the environment safer. Not now, anyway.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

175 Responses to Double Standards

  1. jtfsoon says:

    don’t ask don’t tell is a perfectly sound policy for these matters. I didn’t have a problem with the footballer’s comments.

  2. john malpas says:

    why are homosexuals so powerful as a group in australia?

  3. Ralph Malph says:

    The real scandal is that Campbell was stalked by a journalist. (That the journalist was apparently motivated by a quest for personal vengeance makes it worse.) Ministers make enemies. It’s in the nature of the job. What happens if a nutter stalks a minister with the objective of harming them? It looks like there is nothing to stop them.

  4. boy on a bike says:

    Campbell was a disaster area in all his portfolios. If he was to go, it should have been for incompetence and mismanagement.

    The only reason a gay club would be an issue is if it opened charges of hypocrisy against him – if he had railed against gays and that sort of thing. However, to my knowledge, he never has – so he is not a hypocrite.

    What did it for him is that the state government stinks, and Keneally has no room to manoeuvre. She can’t tough it out, as the government has no credibility or voter support left to burn. He had to go, and quickly, just to avoid another week of headlines. That’s terribly unfair, but if he’d done a good job as a Minister and therefor produced better ratings for the government, he might have saved his career.

  5. boy on a bike says:

    I just wish journalists would put as much effort into researching and developing proper stories as this stalker has put into Campbell’s private life! Too many of them appear to make a living from regurgitating press releases.

  6. JC says:

    So he got the boot obviously for the wrong reasons.

    The real issue then is why did Keneally boot him and should she be taking the wrap?

  7. THR says:

    Akermanis is a moron, but there’s probably a grain of truth to his comments, insofar as any uncloseted gay footballer is likely to have a miserable post-outing existence in the AFL. In a way, Akermanis is correct, in that it’s probably easier overall to simply pretend homosexuality doesn’t exist.
    The irony, of course, is that AFL football is probably the only profession where you roll around in the grass and shower with your colleagues, and congratulate each other with hugs and pats on the backside. In most workplaces this would get you the sack. In Australian sport, full of repressed pillowbiters, this is par for the course. It’s a little like that gang rape/group sex escapade involving Matthew Johns last year. Surely the female in that instance was a thinly veiled excuse to indulge in blatant homoerotic behaviour.

  8. boy on a bike says:

    Why did Campbell have to go?

    Because he sucked.

    Er…at his job.

  9. daddy dave says:

    AFL football is probably the only profession where you roll around in the grass and shower with your colleagues, and congratulate each other with hugs and pats on the backside.
    .
    Such behaviour can only exist if there is an implicit understanding that all such behaviour is non-sexual.
    .
    In Australian sport, full of repressed pillowbiters, this is par for the course
    .
    It’s a left wing myth that homophobes are repressed homosexuals. Ockam’s Razor: bigotry is simply bigotry. Freud is not needed.

  10. jtfsoon says:

    Elsewhere in the world

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/professor-jailed-in-china-swingers-case-20100521-vwmz.html

    A college professor accused of organising a swingers club and holding private orgies in China was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison, officials said, in a case that touched off national debate about sexual freedom.

    Ma Yaohai, 53, was convicted and sentenced on charges of group licentiousness for participating in group sex parties, said an official from the Qinhuai District Court in southeastern Nanjing. The official, who declined to give his name, refused to answer further questions.

  11. Matt in the Riverina says:

    Akermanis has been badly and deliberately misrepresented. Akermanis did not say that should not be allowed in football clubs, in fact, just the opposite. Akermanis’ point was that gay footballers should not believe the cant put out by the AFL and the AGLPA about the AFL being gay-friendly. It is not, and Akermanis has called them on their bullshit.

    Akermanis’ concern was that a gay person would take the AFL at their word and then later find out that it wasn’t all going to be hugs and welcomes. By discouraging gay people from being martyrs, he has been hit from pillar to post by the gay lobby looking for their next cause celebre. Akermanis’ concern was for the welfare of the individual in question, not the welfare of the AFL’s latest promotional campaign or the gay lobby as a whole.

    Australian social commentary does not like subtlety, however.

  12. THR says:

    It’s a left wing myth that homophobes are repressed homosexuals. Ockam’s Razor: bigotry is simply bigotry. Freud is not needed.

    There’s empirical evidence in support of the theory. Homophobes display greater sexual arousal to gay erotica than do non-homophobe straights. Reaction-formation does not account for every instance of homophobia, but it’s a good explanation in some contexts, like the AFL, certain military contexts, or even those firebrand pastors who turn out to be abusing teenage boys on the side.

  13. jtfsoon says:

    why is the idea necessarily a ‘left wing’ myth? I remember reading about at least one study that demonstrated this

  14. JC says:

    So Birdie is a repressed gay, then?

  15. jtfsoon says:

    could be, JC.

    Perhaps that’s why he’s wilfully ignoring all the evidence that Philomena is a fat guy wearing a wig

  16. C.L. says:

    There is no ‘evidence’ to support the ‘theory.’

    ‘Homophobia’ was invented by the gay lobby to silence critics by implying that they must be repressed sodomites themselves.

    There lies the irony: to defend themselves against criticism they reached for the worst possible insult with which they could tarnish their enemies and they chose homosexuality.

    This is also the reason why contemporary macho men like George Clooney and sundry others feel compelled to back gay “marriage” etc. One of the perverse and bizarre corollories of the ‘homophobia’ myth is that they’re actually prnouncing their rampant heterosexuality by affecting to be relaxed and comfortable (and, of course “tolerant”) about homosexuality.

  17. Actully I reckon being either way might mean you’re in the closet.

    What “homophobia” actually does the way it is used as an insult is a way for politically correct types to call others “faggots”.

  18. C.L. says:

    What “homophobia” actually does the way it is used as an insult is a way for politically correct types to call others “faggots”.

    That’s it in a nutshell.

    Kind of like lefties describing Noel Pearson as an “Uncle Tom” or a “coconut.” What they’re really saying is that he’s a cheeky boong.

    The “closet” ad hominem is really no different to the US evangelical lobby’s contention that many homosexuals are really closeted heterosexuals.

  19. THR says:

    There is no ‘evidence’ to support the ‘theory.’

    Garbage.

    Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., Jr., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 440-445.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014

    It’s hilarious that, once again, having a theory and paying attention to empirical evidence is now constitutive of ‘left wing’ bias.

  20. JC says:

    How would they measure “arousal” though. Why would “homophobes” admit to such a thing?

  21. jtfsoon says:

    People like CL aren’t happy with the word ‘homophobia’ because gay activists use it thoughtlessly to tar their opponents.

    Fine. Use whatever word you want. Not everyone who is opposed to gay marriage is a homophobe in the sense of someone who is personally bigoted against homosexuals (which is the sense in which dd uses the term).

    let’s not let bloody words get in the way of the argument, they are supposed to be tools. As logical positivists rightly point out, a lot of pointless arguments boil down to the two sides using different definitions.

    THR’s point is that there has been a study done which looks at self-identified people who in a survey have said they are uncomfortable with homosexuals (call that what you want) and has proceeded to find that their bodies react in a particular way to gay porn.

    The fact that the gay lobby uses words carelessly is no reason to reject research.

  22. THR says:

    How would they measure “arousal” though

    Researchers have special implements and attachments to measure male and female arousal. Like the Galvanic Skin Response used in lie-detector tests, there can be measurable movement without the research subject actually being aware of it.

  23. OK, so the car use wasn’t misuse, but it still gave Channel 7 a grounds on which it could claim to justify its story. I still say it was foolish of him to use it for such a trip.

    More broadly, I think it pretty foolish of any married politician (who isn’t open about his sex life to his partner) to partake of sexual activity in a semi-public venue like that. It’s worse than frequenting a brothel (or hiring a sex worker to visit a hotel room), as brothel owners and sex workers at least have a commercial interest in keeping confidence. But if you go to a venue where you are exposing your infidelity to a self selecting crowd of other members of the public, isn’t there always bound to be a fair chance that sooner or later you’re opening yourself to blackmail by a political enemy?

    I suppose going to a gay sauna has a marginally better chance of keeping it quiet than going to a gay “beat”, but only just.

  24. “THR’s point is that there has been a study done which looks at self-identified people who in a survey have said they are uncomfortable with homosexuals (call that what you want) and has proceeded to find that their bodies react in a particular way to gay porn.”

    That’s extremely dubious.

  25. jtfsoon says:

    JC
    they attach things to appendages which measure how hard they get. the homophobes are identified by a survey the volunteers fill in.

    yes psychology has to rely on self-rating to a great extent. if people on average are going to be reluctant to admit to being homophobes wouldn’t this mean that people who are happy to admit to being them likely to be strong homophobes?

    *again substitute any bloody word you want for ‘homophobe’ instead of making some pedantic point that it’s not really a phobia

  26. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Steve – except for the fact that his associates at the sauna didnt dob him in – it was the media following him.

  27. C.L. says:

    Yeah, I’ve read the Wiki entry too, THR.

    Here’s more evidence:

    In 1993, behavioral scientists William O’Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term “as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality” itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the speaker does not approve. The social construct of masculinity is not defined by attraction to females alone but also by negative attraction to males. The implication of a fear of something unmasculine, given the term’s scientific etymology, may be used illegitimately to imply that anyone with a different opinion is unmasculine.

    Exactly.

    I note that the Wright/Lohr “study” you cite has been used precisely as a weapons to silence critics by far-left outfits like media Matters.

    Now all of us should be very, very careful about people who make big noises on blogs, in the media and politics about gay people and pedophilia. This study and the actual facts of public record show why:

    Adams, H. E., L. W. Wright, Jr., et al. (1996). “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?” J Abnorm Psychol 105(3): 440-5.

    Message: criticise homosexuals and we’ll invent ways of accusing you of being homosexual.

  28. jtfsoon says:

    SRL

    why is it dubious?

    THR has linked to the study. It’s there for people to read about. I’m not doing your homework for you.

    You might as well say there’s no point studying anything to do with human psychology and go home and sing kumbaya and hold hands with the postmodernists.

  29. JC says:

    Really, they attach appendages to the old fella/ Lol

    Perhaps we should be Birdie to sit for one of those tests and finally get the idiot out of the closet once and for all.

  30. “You might as well say there’s no point studying anything to do with human psychology and go home and sing kumbaya and hold hands with the postmodernists.”

    Not really my point. More about sampling, Schrodingers cat, etc.

    I reckon you’d have to virtually spy on these people to know.

  31. jtfsoon says:

    The fact that a study can be politically misused doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.

    It may be wrong but that’s a matter of substance.

    I’ve had a gutful of the bloody postmodernists and sociologist wankers who criticise research into IQ and genetics, etc on precisely the same grounds not to be equally annoyed by similar tactics on the other side.

  32. “I reckon you’d have to virtually spy on these people to know.”

    Is this postmodernist? I reckon it is the best way. Probably prohibitvely costly though.

  33. jtfsoon says:

    a lot of psychological research depends on self administered tests SRL. what are you going to do. junk the whole thing?

  34. For the most part they are fine. My problem with the study is it lacks some detail and doesn’t try to explain the results. In that, you might find a lot of experimental error.

    Maybe it’s self explanatory.

  35. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Irrespective of the merit or otherwise of psych testing, DD’s point about bigotry being bigotry is still true.

  36. Pedro says:

    “This is also the reason why contemporary macho men like George Clooney and sundry others feel compelled to back gay “marriage” etc. One of the perverse and bizarre corollories of the ‘homophobia’ myth is that they’re actually prnouncing their rampant heterosexuality by affecting to be relaxed and comfortable (and, of course “tolerant”) about homosexuality.”

    WTF? Homer has learned to spell and taken CL’s identity. Or is CL claiming to know what George Clooney really thinks about an issue and about his motivations? And the way to show you’re a true hetrosexual is to pretend the fags don’t bother you?

    Maybe, just maybe, a whole bunch of Hetros couldn’t give two hoots about gays getting hitched. Why the fuck shouldn’t gays get married? What type of bizarre logic is required to think the contrary?

    Perhaps it’s my age, but it wouldn’t surprise me if some people with gay or bi inclinations hide it by pretending to really hate gays. That would be a pretty natural strategy in a society where being gay is frowned on or worse.

  37. jtfsoon says:

    how do you know it lacks some detail? that’s only an abstract.

    I’m not claiming the study is the acme and apex of science.

    however for a post on double standards I am suspicious that you would suddenly apply such exacting standards as requiring psycholgists to spy on their subjects to this issue just because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notions. If it were any other issue I bet we wouldn’t be hearing all this.

    I mean, this isn’t some Freudian theorising nonsense, this is as behaviouristic as you can get with the exception of the need to identify homophobes who admit to being homophobes.

  38. Pedro says:

    “My problem with the study is it lacks some detail and doesn’t try to explain the results.”

    I think you answered your own concern. You don’t need to know anything further than that Mr Anti-Gay got a big stiffie watching gay porn. But exactly what details are you looking for Mark? Remember, this is a family blog! 😉

  39. C.L. says:

    The study was close to worthless. Conducted at a university in 1996 (using just 64 men), we can assume that some or all of the 29 whose written answers were judged “tolerant” were simply presenting the “correct” – now culturally pervasive – PC answers. With the difference between goody tolerant subjects and baddy ‘homophobic’ subjects thus blurred, what we can probably say is that randy university students react in some way to porno flicks.

    Author Dr Lester Wright also specialises in such newly invented pathologies as “erotophobia, AIDS phobia and biphobia.” Scroll down for his grants and research funding and you’ll see he’s pretty clearly in the well-paid gay affirmation racket.

    One description of a project: “The purpose of this project is to empirically validate the processes of coming out and homosexual identity formation for gay and lesbian individuals.” How can he empirically validate something he hasn’t studied yet?

    Funding was denied.

    Small wonder.

  40. I’m sorry pedro, when it comes to science, I demand a Strangelovian level of dehumanising technology and prodigous technocratic planning.

  41. Pedro says:

    Good thinking mark. After all, it’s all about the bodily fluids.

  42. THR says:

    The study was close to worthless.

    Now you’re trying to smear the messenger because you don’t like the results. The study was published in a credible, empirical journal, whose peer review panel and editorial board are extremely unlikely to have come from the supposed ‘gay lobby’. (More likely they’d be DSM lobbyists at that journal, but that’s another story).

    The study itself is merely an experimental verification of observations that are decades old, if not centuries. The basic idea is that of Shakespeare’s protesting ‘too much’. Clinical observation by psychoanalysts lent further weight to the theory, but since Anglophone empiricism does not admit clinical observation, these people in 1996 had to come up with an experiment.

    Going back to the topic at hand, why is it precisely among AFL footballers, for instance, that it is so necessary for gays to stay closeted? Does anybody seriously believe that this has nothing to do with firstly, the unfriendly attitudes to gays in AFL, and secondly, the overt bath-house atmosphere that pervades the sport?

  43. jtfsoon says:

    If it is indeed true that some of the people who weren’t picked up as homophobes lied in the test because of the pervasiveness of PC then all that means is that the study only picked up people who were so strongly homophobic that they didn’t give a shit about political correctness. And these people had positive reactions to gay porn. That’s still an interesting result.

    I scroll down Wright’s CV and I see an impressive range of projects, all using clinical methods. The fact that he has a specialty in sexuality is neither here nor there.

  44. Pedro says:

    “Going back to the topic at hand, why is it precisely among AFL footballers, for instance, that it is so necessary for gays to stay closeted? Does anybody seriously believe that this has nothing to do with firstly, the unfriendly attitudes to gays in AFL, and secondly, the overt bath-house atmosphere that pervades the sport?”

    Correct THR, it’s a girly game played by girl wannabies

  45. “After all, it’s all about the bodily fluids.”

    Some may see a need for prodigously polling the population.

    We can’t afford a closet gap!

  46. THR says:

    Correct THR, it’s a girly game played by girl wannabies

    Is Thugby league any better? Haven’t there been a few shenanigans there as well? That guy performing ad hoc prostate exams for his opponents, for instance.

  47. Right. Jason, THR, Roccoco and the Things Bogan Like blog can live in their “no sport” utopia.

    Like Kenny Powers says – he’s an ahtlete. He wins at sports. He doesn’t want to win first prize for exercise.

  48. C.L. says:

    I recall seeing an ABC program in which an illegal porn investigator was interviewed. He responded to the frank obvious question by saying his body reacted in all sorts of ways to what he viewed.

    Ergo – qua ‘homophobia’, ‘erotophobia’, ‘AIDS phobia’ and ‘biphobia’ specialist, Wright – he must have been a latent paedophile with a fetish for midget amputees.

  49. C.L. says:

    The study was published in a credible, empirical journal, whose peer review panel and editorial board…

    Just like the MMR-Autism “link” in the Lancet.

    There are also studies in peer-reviewed journals which contend that “homophobia” is ad hominem boilerplate designed to censor critics of the gay lobby by smearing them as sodomites.

  50. JC says:

    Love the show with Kenny Powers. It ranks right up there with the classics of all time.

    And in the immortal words of Ashely the Used BMW salesman..

    ‘ this is not a game anymore . This isn’t a game anymore’

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_oOTQx04UA

  51. dover_beach says:

    The basic idea is that of Shakespeare’s protesting ‘too much’.

    Does this mean that anyone’s denunciations of communists, fascists, etc. mean that they are ‘closet’ communists, fascists, etc.?

    And these people had positive reactions to gay porn.

    Firstly, what counts as a ‘positive’ reaction? Secondly, how do they distinguish between a positive reaction to gay porn and a positive reaction to familiar images found in straight porn but here in gay porn?

  52. C.L. says:

    The basic idea is that of Shakespeare’s protesting ‘too much’.

    THR’s years-long assault on John Howard indicates to me that he’s secretly in love with JoHo. 🙂

  53. C.L. says:

    Getting back to the post, when it comes to Victorian “football,” I would have thought ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would apply to the minority of heterosexuals involved in the game.

  54. asf says:

    It is more likely to be the general public that has a problem with gay footballers than footballers having problems with gay team mates. As Aker says – he already suspects he has played with a few in the past. I’m sure that in most cases, if a gay footballer did come out, very few of their team mates would be surprised. So really all Aker is saying is – I know you are gay but don’t tell me or the world because I won’t support you. What-a-man.

    The Times did a great story on Welsh rugby player Gareth Thomas recently – seems like most of the problems he has had since coming out as gay has been from opposition fans http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/paul_kimmage/article7086701.ece

    Hopefully, much like with racisms, teams and stadium management will take it upon themselves to remove supporters who yell homophobic taunts and homophobic team mates will have the good sense to keep their bigoted thoughts to themselves.

  55. dover_beach says:

    CL, you closet Victorian, you.

  56. Rococo Liberal says:

    a lot of psychological research depends on self administered tests SRL. what are you going to do. junk the whole thing?

    Yep

  57. Rococo Liberal says:

    If a heterosexual hates buggers rather than buggery, then he is a bigot. If a heterosexual hates buggery and not buggers, then he is well-adjusted. The word ‘homophobia’ is meaningless left wing cant. It is designed to shut down debate and tar as mentally ill those who get in the way of the gay mafia’s lust for power.

  58. AJ says:

    “‘Homophobia’ was invented by the gay lobby to silence critics by implying that they must be repressed sodomites themselves.”

    Is the Gay Lobby like the Secret Committee of Jews that Runs the World? Second, it’s not just homophobes that get labelled gay, and it’s not just gay people who do it: Mama’s boy, closet gay; violent misogynist, closet gay; uptight Christian who finds girls icky, gay; etc. The gays don’t want them anymore than they want homophobic AFL football players.

  59. C.L. says:

    Is the Gay Lobby like the Secret Committee of Jews that Runs the World?

    No, because belief in the latter is a mostly left-wing phenomenon.

    If you’re denying there is such a thing as the gay lobby, you can’t have noticed the politics of gay “marriage” in the politics and polls of at least three US states in the past two years. When they failed to get their electoral approval in California, they went on the rampage in the streets – targeting black people with especial Boy George venom.

  60. “targeting black people with especial Boy George venom”

    ???

    I’m sorry, perhaps you need to buy me a TV.

  61. daddy dave says:

    There’s empirical evidence in support of the theory. Homophobes display greater sexual arousal to gay erotica than do non-homophobe straights.
    .
    That hoary old study? It gets cited everywhere but it is the biggest load of rubbish. Let me tell you why. They measured arousal by heart rate and GSR… in other words, the same things that measure stress.
    Then they got a bunch of guys who were just run of the mill beer drinking young straight boys with ignorant homophobic attitudes, just gone into college, and showed them gay porn. The machines lit up like a fucking christmas tree.
    “Oh look they’re aroused!” cried the researchers.
    Wrong.
    Stressed. Out of their minds.

  62. C.L. says:

    70 percent of California’s blacks voting in favor of Proposition 8. The response from the gay lobby was predictable.

  63. jtfsoon says:

    DD
    are we talking about the same study here?

    according to the abstract, they observed increases in ‘penile circumference’. I don’t know about you, but I most definitely do not get that watching naked men buggering each other. it would turn me off the sight of flesh for days.

  64. dover_beach says:

    dd, so increases in heart rate and GSR were thought to indicate approval of gay porn and when joined with their statements regarding homosexuality to the conclusion that homophobia and closet (or repressed) homosexuality are related? Incredible.

  65. jtfsoon says:

    No dover, read the fucking abstract, you lazy arse, it’s there for you.

  66. daddy dave says:

    according to the abstract, they observed increases in ‘penile circumference’.
    .
    Oh sorry…
    Sounds like we’re not talking about the same study.
    Let me have a look at it, but I’m highly skeptical of the whole hypothesis. It just doesn’t pass what Judith would call the dumb blond test.
    .
    Already there are problems since of the homophobic men that I know, exactly zero would (a) sit through gay porn and (b) allow a college professor to measure the size of their willy.

  67. THR says:

    There are also studies in peer-reviewed journals which contend that “homophobia” is ad hominem boilerplate designed to censor critics of the gay lobby by smearing them as sodomites.

    Which ‘studies’, CL? You’re suspiciously defensive about this homophobia stuff, darling.

    Does this mean that anyone’s denunciations of communists, fascists, etc. mean that they are ‘closet’ communists, fascists, etc.?

    Maybe, but unlike with homosexuality, most people wouldn’t be ashamed to be a communist, fascist, or whatever.

    If a heterosexual hates buggery and not buggers, then he is well-adjusted.

    There are plenty of heteros that are not well-adjusted then, by this definition.

    That hoary old study? It gets cited everywhere but it is the biggest load of rubbish. Let me tell you why. They measured arousal by heart rate and GSR… in other words, the same things that measure stress

    Er, Dave, have a look at the study again. They were measuring penile circumference. It’d be a funny way of showing stress…

  68. daddy dave says:

    in other words, what the hell kind of homophobes are these anyway? sitting in a university psychology lab, getting their dicks strapped up, and watching gay porn.
    selection bias much?

  69. jtfsoon says:

    so now you’re inclined to dismiss the study because of anecdotal evidence about the homophobic men you know. that’s assuming you’re categorising them properly – they may just be highly religious men who are doctrinally against homosexuality.

    fine.

    saves me the time of continuing this discussion further.

  70. jtfsoon says:

    Perhaps they got paid, dave?

    anyway I don’t know why I’m wasting time on this with you. you obviously believe what you want to.

  71. daddy dave says:

    anyway I don’t know why I’m wasting time on this with you. you obviously believe what you want to.
    .
    Look, it’s a really stupid hypothesis at face value. It’s not only convoluted, it’s counter-intuitive. Therefore, you’d better have some bloody good evidence. But the methodology is shot to bits. If you really want I will go over it with a fine tooth comb on the weekend and give you a thoughtful argument about all the ways this kind of research sucks.
    .
    The only sexuality studies that are not absolutely embarrassing jokes are the stuff that gets done in the evo-psych field. The rest is just facepalm bad, and this is no exception.

  72. Can anyone supply a link to the full paper? Like many people, whether or not its peer reviewed, I’ve also always felt it’s had the smell of being too perfect to be reliable. I mean, surely there are “nonhomophobic” men who’s penis happened to stir during the gay porn. In fact, was there a random test done to some non sexual video, to see if, by coindence, you sometimes get some false positives amongst a bunch of young blokes while watching a seascape. (Or reading a Nicholas Gruen post on Web 2 – that’s about as far from sex as I can imagine.)

  73. dover_beach says:

    Easy, Jason. I’ve just read the paper, it is far more circumspect in it’s discussion section than the abstract indicates. Here is an interesting remark that backs-up daddy dave’s point:

    Another explanation of these data is found in Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck’s (1983) theory of the role of anxiety and attention in sexual responding. It is possible that viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as anxiety in homophobic men but not in nonhomophobic men. Because anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict increases in erection in homophobic men. Furthermore, it would indicate that a response to homosexual stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se.

    This section of the findings was also interesting:

    Another way of evaluating these data is to calculate the percentage of men who demonstrated no significant tumescence (i.e., 0–6 mm), modest tumescence (i.e., > 6–12 mm), and definite tumescence (i.e., > 12 mm) based on their mean tumescence score to the homosexual video. In the homophobic group, 20% showed no significant tumescence, 26% showed moderate tumescence, and 54% showed definite tumescence to the homosexual video; the corresponding percentages in the nonhomophobic group were 66%, 10%, and 24%, respectively.

  74. What about Kinsey? Society needed a thorough survey to show them what they were really like.

  75. badm0f0 says:

    “what the hell kind of homophobes are these anyway? sitting in a university psychology lab, getting their dicks strapped up, and watching gay porn.”

    Sound quite a lot like “unlawful combatants” actually.

  76. THR says:

    Can anyone supply a link to the full paper?

    It’d almost certainly be behind a paywall. I can hunt around when I get the chance for a version that I can cust and paste.

    The only sexuality studies that are not absolutely embarrassing jokes are the stuff that gets done in the evo-psych field.

    The evo-psych stuff is the embarrassment. Here, the theory is sound. The methodology is sound too. The only achilles heel would be the method of assigning subjects to their respective groups, which was done on the basis of a psych test. I know nothing about the psych test, and I’d have to look it up to know whether it ticks the boxes on reliability, validity, etc. Everything else with the study is entirely watertight.

  77. THR says:

    Because anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict increases in erection in homophobic men. Furthermore, it would indicate that a response to homosexual stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se.

    This ends up being circular, like all of Beck’s hypotheses. The sexual arousal is a ‘threat’, signalled as anxiety. And why anxiety? Because of the sexual arousal.

  78. jtfsoon says:

    being anxious and stressed gives you a stiffy? hmm

  79. daddy dave says:

    What about Kinsey? Society needed a thorough survey to show them what they were really like.
    .
    Kinsey’s stuff was poorly designed. For one thing he sought data from sexually deviant subgroups. For another he had self-selection bias.

  80. daddy dave says:

    “what the hell kind of homophobes are these anyway? sitting in a university psychology lab, getting their dicks strapped up, and watching gay porn.”
    .
    This wasn’t a flippant remark. Any “homophobe” who participates in research where they get research assistants playing with their tackle and they watch gay porn….
    their homophobe credentials are in question.
    And yes, this does raise the question whether a valid design is even possible.
    but that’s what you get for posing dopey hypotheses.

  81. THR says:

    Having just had a look at the 1996 study, it may be worth pointing out for the Freud-haters out there that it has nothing psychoanalytic about it. Almost all of the citations are to cognitive psychologists, and not a single one is to anything vaguely psychoanalytic. So the cognitivists are here providing support for the idea of ‘reaction-formation’ in psychoanalysis, completely independently of the latter. I think this is what Professor Bird calls ‘convergence’.

  82. John H. says:

    This ends up being circular, like all of Beck’s hypotheses. The sexual arousal is a ‘threat’, signalled as anxiety. And why anxiety? Because of the sexual arousal.

    Research published just a few weeks ago show that generalised arousal could be very significant in sexual arousal. It was found that attractive women cause men’s cortisol, the key stress hormone, to spike quite high. An older study found that the more attractive a woman news presenter, the less information they men absorbed.

    Also consider why young men entice women with high danger activities like fast cars and daring stuff, the suggestion is that threat can increase sexual arousal. That or there are a lot of very stupid young men in the world. Hmmm …. .

    Daddy Dave, thanks for your comments. I have often thought that homophobia thing was a rhetorical strategy bereft of analysis.

  83. dover_beach says:

    What are we to say of the 1 in 4 men that were part of the non-homophobic straight men that indicated “definite tumescence to the homosexual video”? Closet or repressed homosexuals as well?

  84. daddy dave says:

    Daddy Dave, thanks for your comments. I have often thought that homophobia thing was a rhetorical strategy bereft of analysis.
    .
    Thanks John. You give me more credit than perhaps I deserve since my comments have been a fusion of commentary and rant.

  85. “An older study found that the more attractive a woman news presenter, the less information they men absorbed.”

    I like the 7 news with Sam Armytage. I have no idea what she’s saying.

    “Also consider why young men entice women with high danger activities like fast cars and daring stuff, the suggestion is that threat can increase sexual arousal. That or there are a lot of very stupid young men in the world. Hmmm ….”

    Young, dumb and…the Johnny Utah quote.

  86. Sinclair Davidson says:

    the more attractive a woman news presenter, the less information they men absorbed

    That’s just not true, the Naked News is a very informative program. 🙂

  87. THR says:

    What are we to say of the 1 in 4 men that were part of the non-homophobic straight men that indicated “definite tumescence to the homosexual video”? Closet or repressed homosexuals as well?

    Maybe. The argument here isn’t that only homophobes are latently gay, or that homophobes are necessarily latent gay. The point is that some of them are. This makes sense – object-choice, whether in terms of love or hate, isn’t merely incidental to an individual’s personality.
    Whilst there is a degree of chance that may bring a couple together, falling in love (and staying there) has nothing random about it. There’s no reason why hate and fear ought to be any different.

  88. daddy dave says:

    The point is that some of them are.
    .
    That’s certainly true.
    .
    Whilst there is a degree of chance that may bring a couple together, falling in love (and staying there) has nothing random about it.
    .
    Nothing random about it? How so?

  89. “The point is that some of them are.”

    But here’s the rub: it gets used as a term of derision perhaps worse than being gay once was.

    Now a malicious straight person can abuse all and sundry for being gay or homophobic.

    What a pleasant society.

  90. THR says:

    But here’s the rub: it gets used as a term of derision perhaps worse than being gay once was.

    Here’s the real rub – only a homophobe would find accusations of latent homosexuality to be insulting in the first place.

  91. C.L. says:

    You’re right to be sceptical, Dave. The “study” was done by a grant-addicted sex “phobia” crank using 64 blokes whose opinions were subjectively assessed via a vague form-filling exercise of some kind. The “study” is widely cited by far left gay lobby groups in order to shut down criticism of homosexuals – which was presumably its purpose ab initio.

    Judging from the Prop 8-related terrorism we saw in California, a more important sociological analysis awaits completion on systemic racism in the gay community.

    All of this is a distraction, in any case. The fact is “homophobia” is a recently invented ad hominem used to silence people by smearing them as secret or latent homosexuals.

  92. C.L. says:

    Here’s the real rub – only a homophobe would find accusations of latent homosexuality to be insulting in the first place.

    Which means that THR is now making the absurd claim that homosexuals are homophobes. Because it was homosexuals themselves who decided that the worst possible insult to use agsinst their enemies was to accuse them of being fags.

    Also note the subtle shift in what “homophobia” means. THR is now saying that any man or woman who doesn’t care to be called or regarded as homosexual is – by that very fact alone – a secret homosexual.

    Stalin meets Dali on a canvass of Orwellian poppycock.

  93. John H. says:

    a more important sociological analysis awaits completion on systemic racism in the gay community.

    It has been suggested to me that there was, particularly prior to the AIDS crisis, real enmity between homosexuals and lesbians.

    There are some fascinating neuro-imaging studies touching on this. There are different neural activation patterns for sexual arousal across heterosexuals, homosexuals, and lesbians. Such studies may offer a better way to test this homophobia stuff. Must have been done by now but I aint going lookin’.

    There are a wide range of other differences revealed in neuro-imaging studies.

  94. THR says:

    Which means that THR is now making the absurd claim that homosexuals are homophobes.

    Not at all. You’re Jesuit mind tricks aren’t going to get you far here. It’s self-evident that only a homophobe would find the accusation of latent gayness to be a crippling narcissistic blow. This is quite irrespective of whether said accusation is true. Your conflations, smears and distortions are one thing when regurgitating articles by Bolt and Coulter, but they don’t work too well with actual research.

  95. From dover_beach’s extract, it would appear the abstract is simply wrong and deeply misleading.

    And both THR and CL deserve credit for rhetorical wit in that last exchange.

  96. Peter Patton says:

    Putting aside the dubiousness of ‘”abnormal and social psychology” being anything like scientific, it is quite possible the ‘homophobes’ they studied were just highly sexed blokes who would get a hard-on looking at videos of ant colonies

  97. Peter Patton says:

    And Akermanis opined very wisely, cut through all the marketing bullshit, and accurately and succinctly gives the lay of the land. If AFL players want to come out that’s their prerogative; as is Akermanis’ to give the benefit of his wisdom from being in the sport for so long.

    The consequences for most elite sportsman coming out while they are still playing pro are very, very far from happy ones.

  98. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    Akermanis explained it very clearly, using concrete examples. The issue comes down to trust and the effect that a gay man can have on that group trust in the peculiar hothoused environment football players exist in.

  99. sdfc says:

    Akermanis said he wouldn’t be happy slapping a teammate on the bum in the changeroom if he thought they were gay.

    I’ve never understood why you would do that regardless of your teammate’s persuasion. Maybe I just never played at a high enough level.

  100. tal says:

    Well this makes a change from talking about “frocks”

  101. Michael Sutcliffe says:

    It’s a little like that gang rape/group sex escapade involving Matthew Johns last year. Surely the female in that instance was a thinly veiled excuse to indulge in blatant homoerotic behaviour.

    This is the left-wing fantasy as it feeds their superiority complex.

    The reality is there’s a bunch of red-blooded blokes who are both good mates and living in such close proximity that they don’t have many secrets anyway, who because of their fitness and lifestyle are always keen for a fuck, and there’s only one woman available and keen to go. If she’s up for it, they’ll be up for it, and no one would deny their good mate a root in a pick-up circumstance. It’s a gang bang, not a bisexual orgy.

    Furthermore, I’m sure you’ll find there’s plenty of straight guys out there who, when not having much luck, have teamed up with a mate to offer a young lady a threesome, in order to make her an offer she can’t refuse. And I’m sure there’s plenty of young ladies out there who were a bit disappointed, because although they both slept with her it wasn’t exactly how she imagined the threesome would go, and the first one left anyway – probably to go to the bar or watch TV – as soon as he got satisfaction!

    Human behaviour: what are you goin’ to do?

  102. Michael Sutcliffe says:

    Tal, forgive me for that last comment. It’s only the left-wingers I want to offend!

  103. tal says:

    No offence taken Michael 🙂

  104. FDB says:

    Sounds like you’ve had some bad experiences in gang-bangs, Michael. Don’t worry, one day one of those guys will look at your cock, I’m sure of it. It’s just a matter of patience, and finding the right situation.

    By the way, all this talk of “the rub”, and the “REAL rub” and I feel the need to let off some steam:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5s5ZFNwp9s

  105. Michael Sutcliffe says:

    Don’t worry, one day one of those guys will look at your cock, I’m sure of it. It’s just a matter of patience, and finding the right situation.

    That’s good, ’cause it’s starts to weigh on you. You know, is there something wrong with me? Am I attractive? Like most people, I just want to feel sexy. Surely that’s not too much to ask, is it?

  106. Michael Sutcliffe says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5s5ZFNwp9s

    There’s definitely a certain chemistry there. It gets lonely in the far reaches of the galaxy, and those tight fitting uniforms and all…….

  107. FDB says:

    I feel your pain Michael.

    Seriously though, I’ve been a dabbler in bisexuality myself, but I have no public macho image to keep up. I find it completely credible that a lot of guys in gang-bangs experience some homoerotic thrills (perhaps even without realising it themselves), and seek out such situations for that reason. Amongst footballers, and in a culture that encourages the behaviour, so much more so.

    Why would anyone doubt it? That’s the question that springs to my mind.

  108. FDB says:

    OMG DEJA VOOOOO!!!!

  109. Michael Sutcliffe says:

    Why would anyone doubt it? That’s the question that springs to my mind.

    I’m basing it on laddish behaviour in the military, but I personally don’t believe the homoerotic thing holds up as the ‘psychoanalysts’ like to claim. I’m sure there are homoerotic gang bangs, but the people in them know it. I think the Mathew Johns stuff really is just boys being boys…..well, animals, as they are wont to be from time to time.

  110. C.L. says:

    I don’t know any Jesuits, THR. Interesting in a discussion on bigotry (falsely medicalised in a bogus “study” by an academic whose other specialities include “biphobia”) that you should reach for an insult that was a favourite of the American Know Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan.

    As I said above, you’re now making the absurd claim that homosexuals are homophobes. Because it was homosexuals themselves who decided that the worst possible insult to use agsinst their enemies was to accuse them of being sodomites. It was a deliberate tactic. You’re also now saying that any man or woman who doesn’t care to be called or regarded as homosexual is – by that very fact alone – a secret homosexual.

    The Prop 8 test case – and the gay lobby’s terror tactics following the vote – was a far bigger and more disturbing survey and manifestation of opinion. The episode demonstrated that there is an undeniable link between politicised homosexuality and racism. Now that is something worthy of study.

    Funny how the same critics of the Tea Party have so quickly forgotten the cries of “nigger” directed against African-Americans by California’s catty gay stormtroopers just a few years ago.

  111. THR says:

    ’m basing it on laddish behaviour in the military, but I personally don’t believe the homoerotic thing holds up as the ‘psychoanalysts’ like to claim. I’m sure there are homoerotic gang bangs, but the people in them know it.

    This idea that people have simple, unified, self-determined ‘will’, that they are always conscious of their motivations – this pertains to the more vulgar and senseless end of liberal mythology.

  112. THR says:

    don’t know any Jesuits, THR. Interesting in a discussion on bigotry (falsely medicalised in a bogus “study” by an academic whose other specialities include “biphobia”) that you should reach for an insult that was a favourite of the American Know Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan.

    CL, we all get that you don’t like Jesuits, because they’re ‘lefty’ or something. I was mocking the casuistry inherent in your scattergun smears, and your blatant fabrications on my position. My allusion was both to casuistry and Star Wars, but like all things, over-explaining an allusion tends to kill it.

  113. C.L. says:

    CL, we all get that you don’t like Jesuits…

    Really? When did I last mention Jesuits? I don’t recall when. But now that you’ve elevated yourself to spokesman for the Catallaxy soviet, perhaps you could explain why you “all” think that.

    You simply reached for an old-fashioned Tory stereotype – Catholic commentator must be a secret Jesuit activist (also mention the word ‘casuistry’) – as if the irony of this in such a discussion had simply passed you by without so much as a nod.

    You clearly argued above that any man or woman who doesn’t care to be called or regarded as homosexual is – by that very fact alone – a secret homosexual.

    I honestly doubt even the gay lobby wants your sort of intellectual support – as such a proposition is unlikely to help their cause.

  114. JC says:

    I think that he is a public figure and we’ve got a right to know.

    The reverse of that would be to censure our right to know about our public officials therefore detrimental to free and open speech.

    There is also the issue of morality and the fact is that the dude was actually acting like a scumbag.

    He is married and has a family so if he’s breaking his marriage agreement i would like to know as that would offer more information in terms of what sort of person we’re dealing with.

    Scumbaggery by our public officials should always be allowed on the public record.

    This sort of story leads back to arseholes like Elliot Spitzer the NY governor that was forced to resign because he bought hookers.

    The turd used to go after other people and take them to trial for buying hookers, so it was good that his own morality was publicly exposed and he was forced to resign as a hypocrite douchebag. Privacy laws etc. would most probably prevent that sort of thing.

  115. THR says:

    Really? When did I last mention Jesuits?

    Dunno. The archives are gone. You’ve mentioned Jesuits a few times, however, and always in connection with how ‘left’ they are.

    You clearly argued above that any man or woman who doesn’t care to be called or regarded as homosexual is – by that very fact alone – a secret homosexual.

    No, I haven’t, and I’ve made that clear.

    I honestly doubt even the gay lobby wants your sort of intellectual support – as such a proposition is unlikely to help their cause.

    I’m not interested in the gay lobby. I’m baffled that you would seek to align yourself with the Akermanis/Matthew Johns lobby.

  116. pedro says:

    “I think that he is a public figure and we’ve got a right to know.”

    Nah we don’t, not unless he’s being a criminal or a major, as compared to your common or garden variety, hypocrite.

    The justice in the Spitzer case is not that a scumbag got caught being sleazy, but that he was abusing his position to do so.

  117. JC says:

    How do you legislate a right to privacy in these circumstances, Pedro? What if he was entering a known criminal’s home? Unless the person is caught in the act of receiving a brown paper bag containing money.
    Doesn’t work.

    this sort of things goes with the job.

  118. C.L. says:

    THR:

    “Here’s the real rub – only a homophobe would find accusations of latent homosexuality to be insulting in the first place.”

    Me:

    “You clearly argued above that any man or woman who doesn’t care to be called or regarded as homosexual is – by that very fact alone – a secret homosexual.”

    THR:

    “No, I haven’t…”

    I’m baffled that you would seek to align yourself with the Akermanis/Matthew Johns lobby.

    I have no idea who Akermanis is. My criticism of, and contempt for, Matthew Johns are pretty well known here abouts.

  119. daddy dave says:

    this sort of things goes with the job
    .
    I don’t agree. We don’t have a formal right to privacy, but we should, And it should be inalienable. Similarly we shouldn’t be treated to photos of him having a shower or arguing with his wife.

  120. THR says:

    “Here’s the real rub – only a homophobe would find accusations of latent homosexuality to be insulting in the first place.”

    My statement, reproduced here, is not identical to your distortion of it, as I pointed out several comments earlier, and which anybody can see:

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/05/21/double-standards/comment-page-3/#comment-48712

  121. C.L. says:

    Direct quote:

    “Here’s the real rub – only a homophobe would find accusations of latent homosexuality to be insulting in the first place.”

    Nothing to distort. That’s it.

    Now you’re pulling an Abbott (so to speak) and retro-fitting the veracity of your statements based on whim.

  122. THR says:

    Yep. And where did I say that all homophobes are gay? I can point out where I didn’t.

  123. JC is probably right – I can’t really imagine a way of legislating privacy rights in a way that can be sufficiently certain as to what behaviour is or isn’t relevant to an electorate’s legitimate assessment of a candidate.

    But – Channel 7’s attempt at justification is pretty galling:

    “In the case of Mr Campbell, here was a guy who had been minister for police, which is a very sensitive portfolio, who had been presenting himself and gaining re-election as a happy family man – sending out Christmas cards with his wife and sons pictured on the card and portraying himself as a loving father and husband.

    “Now all this time and apparently for the last 25 years he has been acting otherwise. I think the electorate have the right to know that.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/21/2906352.htm

    I like the way they assume how many decades this has been going on. And anyway, Channel 7, when you start investigating all reliable reports of politicians’ infidelity, of whatever sexual variation, as proof that their Chrissy cards are rank hypocrisy, we’ll start to believe you that this was not just a personal vendetta.

  124. JC says:

    Sactly, steve.
    There’s only one rule in public life. If you choose to go into that sort of job then don’t be a scum bag and behave yourself.

    If you don’t like making choices in life that could end up causing deep regret then don’t go into public life.

    The worst thing we could ever do is to try and shield public officials even when it’s to do with their private lives. It would be the worst thing imaginable as they would invariably run it as a protection racket.

    No politician should ever given such a shield.

  125. C.L. says:

    And where did I say that all homophobes are gay? I can point out where I didn’t.

    What was that you were saying about casuistry?

    The very propaganda word “homophobe” is meant to imply probable homosexuality.

    As a militant supporter of the word’s general (and even pseudo-“clinical” meaning), you were claiming that anyone who doesn’t care to be considered a homosexual is – by that very fact alone – a “homophobe” (a latent homosexual).

    You’re simply proving that the word is an all-purpose ad hominem designed to shut people up. Not only are critics of homosexual cultural politicking latent homosexuals but, according to you, even those falsely so described are guilty of “homophobia” anyway for objecting to the insinuation in the first place.

  126. THR says:

    The very propaganda word “homophobe” is meant to imply probable homosexuality.

    No. This connection cannot be drawn, either from the word’s etymology, or its common usage.

  127. C.L. says:

    The very propaganda word “homophobe” is meant to imply probable homosexuality.

    THR now:

    “No. This connection cannot be drawn.”

    THR above:

    “There is empirical evidence in support of the theory [that homophobes are repressed homosexuals].”

  128. THR says:

    This is a tedious game, CL. I qualified my statement:

    “There is empirical evidence in support of the theory [that homophobes are repressed homosexuals].”

    to indicate that not all homophobes are repressed gays, and vice versa.

  129. Boris says:

    “Now you’re trying to smear the messenger because you don’t like the results.”

    Now, I do not often agree with THR, but the objection to the study looked a lot like that.

  130. Boris says:

    JC 11:43 am: So he got the boot obviously for the wrong reasons.

    The real issue then is why did Keneally boot him and should she be taking the wrap?

    I agree 100%

    JC 9:18 pm There is also the issue of morality and the fact is that the dude was actually acting like a scumbag.

    Personal morality is a private matter for him and his wife. You are making a moral judgement. Others may have other views on this.

    Now, I agree public figures should not have any special protection, and yes, it kind of comes with the job. But as you said earlier, this should not be a ground for dismissal. In case of our esteemed PM, it wasn’t. I would think the job of PM is a bit more sensitive than that of a state transport minister, but it seems not to be the case…

  131. Fleeced says:

    “Personal morality is a private matter for him and his wife. You are making a moral judgement. Others may have other views on this.”

    I disagree… or perhaps I don’t, but just see politics as an area where ethics and morality collide. I just don’t believe you can isolate his moral choices here – the public have a right to know.

    There was this argument with the Clinton scandal as well (and every other sex scandal,) and some have been consistent on saying these are irrelevant – fair enough (though I may not agree that it’s irrelevant) – but it seems many on this issue are focusing on the gay angle. If there is a double standard here, it’s in how so many are falling over themselves to absolve his “scumbaggery” because he’s gay (whatever that means – life just isn’t as black and white as our labels suggest).

  132. C.L. says:

    Nonsense. The “study” was written by an ideologist whose speciality is invented sexual pathologies including “erotophobia, AIDS phobia and biphobia.”

  133. C.L. says:

    Nonsense, Boris.

  134. JC says:

    I agree with Fleeced. People here seem to be falling over themselves because the dude is possibly bi/gay or whatever which has nothing to do with it.

    There are laws that would prevent a “journo” from peering over the fence into your home to see what you’re doing or say leaving a hidden microphone inside the house. That shit is illegal. What isn’t illegal is following the dude into a gay bar and reporting on it.

    It’s got nothing to do with him being gay.

    Loss of privacy goes with the job. He got hurt, he shouldn’t have been a scumbag.

    These are public officials we’re talking about and they should try to behave themselves.

  135. Boris says:

    “but just see politics as an area where ethics and morality collide.”

    I am not sure what is the difference between ethics and morality, but, I do think politicians should be judged by their policies and their (work) performance, and not by their sex life. In reality, this is not quite the case, but in my view, this is totally wrong.

    After the previous NSW scandal, the lady that exposed her lover said that this was in the public interest because if he lies to her and to his wife, then how he can be trusted to be a minister or even premier. I think this is a pretty dubious argument. This is my view anyway.

  136. Michael Fisk says:

    AIDS phobia? How on earth is that a “pathology”??

  137. Boris says:

    JC, I am surprised you make a moral judgement about his behaviour. I disagree. I think it is quite moral to visit such a club.

  138. Boris says:

    “Now you’re trying to smear the messenger because you don’t like the results.”

    Thinking about it, I still agree with the above statement. But I also see nothing wrong with this. Suppose I read on Catallaxy that crocodiles are birds. I say ‘rubbish’. But no, I am told there is a peer-reviewed study out there that proves bla bla bla…

    So of course I try to read the study to see what they got wrong.

    A sound approach.

    I do a lot of this kind ‘error digging’ when I review scientific papers. I see the result is wrong and then try to understand where they screwed up.

  139. JC says:

    Boris

    We all make moral judgments. Nothing he did was illegal or anything like that, however he has no right to privacy in circumstances such as this.

    I really don’t care what he’s done actually, however we shouldn’t ever think about shielding these politicians from media scrutiny thinking there are certain boundaries. There are boundaries however they have the same as we have such as laws pertaining to peeping tomes etc.

    Never ever give pols special privileges…. and they know the rules before they go after the job. IF they don’t like the scrutiny then they shouldn’t get into it.

  140. Boris says:

    JC I agree. Thanks for clarifying.

  141. JC says:

    JC, I am surprised you make a moral judgement about his behaviour. I disagree. I think it is quite moral to visit such a club.

    Boris, what’s moral about breaking a marriage contract?

    People can screw a rubber doll for all I care. However I don’t really think it’s moral to be breaking a contract.

  142. JC says:

    okay .. didn’t read the last comment. Thanks.

  143. Boris says:

    “I don’t really think it’s moral to be breaking a contract.”

    Well a marriage is not really a contract. Who knows what their real agreement is? Couples often agree to all sorts of arrangements…

  144. JC says:

    That’s true, Boris, but in this case it seems he was hiding this stuff as he now says he needs to time spend with his family.

    It doesn’t sound as though they had any special arrangements.

    I’d argue marriage is very much a contract.

  145. JC,
    I have to agree with Boris on this one. He really only should have been on TV if there was evidence that it was affecting his job.
    It could be that his wife knew and accepted it – I do not know and I have no interest in knowing. More importantly, there is no way that Channel Seven could have known of any arrangements between him and his wife. The more I think about it the more I am convinced that it should never have made the air.

  146. JC says:

    Yea Andrew, however the more I thought about it the more this shit worries me when it’s about pols.

    They should never be given an even break. What if this dude was threatened? He did have a pretty big job with serious money moving around and decision he made that could effect the spending of millions of dollars and contracts awarded etc.

    Never give these pols.. these fuckers an inch.

  147. Boris says:

    “as he now says he needs to time spend with his family.”

    Maybe. But maybe it is another way of saying “I have been sacked”.

    I do not know and I do not care.

  148. C.L. says:

    I don’t exactly have a track record of ‘falling over myself’ to get errant homosexuals off the hook. Campbell did nothing illegal, did not breach ministerial guidelines and was not a morals campaigner. He was outed purely for entertainment reasons by a reporter pursuing a personal vendetta. Having seen its ministerial car excuse demolished, Channel 7’s boss is now seriously arguing that they ran the story because the dude sent out a Christmas card featuring his family.

    Meanwhile, Bolt makes a good point about double standards – noting that gay godfather David Marr is outraged about the Campbell expose but laughed up the gayness ‘n boys smear job launched against Alan Jones.

  149. I thought Miranda Devine wrote pretty well about it today. (Both she and Bolt have a go at the silly “but he sent Christmas cards with family pics”line):

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-family-man-beyond-our-ken-20100521-w1p7.html

    I also see that he has admitted having a “double life” for a couple of decades. Last night on Lateline, some Channel 7 guy was concentrating more on the fact that it was going on while he was police minister. The report also mentioned there were rumours of him frequenting gay beats while mayor of Woollongong.

    As JC argues, for any politician to have secret behaviour he/she does not want revealed is potentially dangerous, but there is a question of scale involved too. No one would expect them to get out the job for having a one night stand while away on (say) an ALP conference. (We do want some politicians left, after all.)

    But the more persistent, and the more salacious, the secret infidelity, the worse it becomes, and Campbell has been very foolish for a very long time.

  150. pedro says:

    “How do you legislate a right to privacy in these circumstances, Pedro? What if he was entering a known criminal’s home? Unless the person is caught in the act of receiving a brown paper bag containing money.
    Doesn’t work.

    this sort of things goes with the job.”

    Well, JC, you can’t and they do. But bad manners are also endemic and while we can’t legislate against them, nor do we condone them. Butif you make excuses for sleazy journos you will end up with more of them.

  151. Barrie Unsworth quoted in The Australian today:

    Unsworth makes a further point that goes some way towards answering claims of homophobia in the public “outing” of Campbell. While NSW Premier Keneally objected yesterday to suggestions a closet gay man in politics makes himself vulnerable to being compromised, Unsworth is far from convinced.

    “Campbell has been the police minister and he’s been on the state crime commission, and he’s frequented places where he’s easily recognised,” he says.

    “The threat is not from Channel 7 lurking outside but by the people inside. We’ve got a criminal milieu in this city and he laid himself open to all sorts of threats and blackmail.

    “Going to an establishment like that is no different to if he went to a brothel.

    “You can spend every night there if you like, but you should resign your position as a minister of the crown.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/public-life-the-place-for-private-exposure/story-e6frg6zo-1225869807894

  152. C.L. says:

    That’s all true but it’s also all post hoc. That is, ‘now that he’s been outed, here’s the upside.’ But Channel 7 didn’t out him for those reasons. They outed him (nominally – and incorrectly) because he used a ministerial car. Less nominally, the reporter had a personal grudge against Campbell for supposedly exposing his and his parliamentary girlfriend’s misuse of a government vehicle and driver. There is simply no end to this sort of politics once it gets underway. You end up like America – with its ridiculous snoopiness about past drug use and sexual peccadilloes. As I mentioned in the other thread, such standards would have taken out General Eisenhower long before D-Day.

  153. Peter Patton says:

    Boris

    I remember as a teenager, we’d say “well it says so in the Sydney Morning Herald, so there!” Nowadays, like SMH journos, I am familiar with so many of the “peers” in modern day universities; the moment I hear “peer reviewed” as authority for someone’s argument, I reach for my revolver.

  154. Peter Patton says:

    Steve

    The image of Campbell “laid himself open” has put me off my croissant.

  155. Peter Patton says:

    Steve

    I agree about the “foolishness” from a professional perspective. What he has done is neither illegal, nor ‘wrong,’ but it probably does violate certain societal expectations and professional norms; like getting pissed at an office Xmas party, and flashing your willy.

    OTOH, these standards are always applied inconsistently. If Kevin Rudd had been caught coming out of “Scores,” while he was in opposition, he probably would’ve been given a pass. Not because Scores was a hetero joint, but because most people would have said “phew, the poor little thing could do with some excitement in his life.” OTOH, Campbell just doesn’t elicit that kind of sympathetic response.

  156. pedro says:

    “We’ve got a criminal milieu in this city and he laid himself open to all sorts of threats and blackmail.”

    It’s an argument that should not be accepted as a valid basis to drag a person’s lawful private life into the public domain.

  157. Peter Patton says:

    pedro

    Hopefully that journo has attracted bad karma with his abominable behavior.

  158. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Anyway let Channel 7 provide the evidence if that is the case.

  159. Peter Patton says:

    Speaking of an unfair world, where being pretty gives one privileges way beyond one’s skills or talent. Check out pretty boy’s latest hubris.

    IN prime ministerial terms Kevin Rudd is set to become a footnote in Australian political history, wedged between our second longest serving prime minister, John Howard, and our first female PM, Julia Gillard.

  160. Meanwhile, I think Kristina Keneally should just stop talking about it. Yesterday she used the word “unforgiveable”, today it’s this:

    “It is not unforgivable what he did,” she said.

    “It is unacceptable to lie but it is equally unacceptable to live in a community where your sexuality is not accepted.”

    Oh please. He was forced into having sex at gay venues because “the community” wouldn’t accept it? Funny thing to say from the city of the biggest gay mardi gras this side of the world.

    The problem, Ms K, was that he feared his family, of whom he was apparently fond enough to stay with, wouldn’t accept it.

  161. BirdLab says:

    Crikey has some intersting insights into the who’c, why’s and wherefore’s:

    “The Channel Seven newsroom has split this morning over the ethics of state political reporter Adam Walters’ icky scoop exposing transport minister David Campbell’s “double life” as a bisexual man.”

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/21/the-minister-the-gay-sauna-and-a-reporter-with-scores-to-settle/

  162. Boris says:

    Peter, I don’t know what your field is, but in my field peer review is not a bad filter. Far from perfect, but a reasonable filter.

  163. Boris says:

    I don’t fully understand the logic of the ‘police minister’ angle.

    If he did nothing illegal, then he was not volnurable. He could just say: “ok, go ahead and reveal it”.

    Ultimately, the fact that this did not happen during his time as PM speaks for itself.

  164. Peter Patton says:

    Boris

    And I don’t know what field you are in! 🙂 My point is that just coming on to a blog thinking you make very general and broad conclusions such as homphobia, blah, blah, and say “oh, but its backed by a peer reviewed journal article” doesn’t cut it.

    1. There are thousands and thousands of journal out there.

    2. Every two bit discipline claims its territory is backed-up by “peer review.” So you get people – for example in “Media Studies” coming out and saying “well peer-reviewed research shows that children who both start daycare at age 12 months and then watch 6 hours of television a day OR play computer games between the ages of 6 and 15 score 5 percentage points higher in their HSC and get divorced less, so there.”

    3. When I was an undergrad at uni, I wrote Research Essays on homosexuality, its causes, practices, and so on in:

    (a) Psychology – Psych I, Social Psych, Physiological Psych, Stats and Research Methods, and Abnormal Psych. Some of the articles were just putrid (and we given them to see if we could work that out, and have the confidence to say so).

    Also, in Psych, what you can say about any research published always has to be extremely qualified by the perculiarities of that paper’s methodology, sample, etc. Even the very best authors will insist upon that.

    So I have no doubt if you and I were sitting down having a chat about some journal article, the list of qualifications and nuances we would agree on would be quite long.

    (b) History and Philosophy of Science

    (c) Traditional History if you can believe that. I took one option called Histories of Sexualities, whose entire premise was that Experimental Psychology was a complete waster of time, and arrant nonsense. And all this was argued and presented in myriad “peer-reviewed” journal articles.

    Bottom Line; The more general and broad the claim about results from “peer-reviewed journals – ESPECIALLY about individual human behavior in groups – the more likely I will call bollocks. Rebuttable bollocks to be sure. 🙂

  165. Peter Patton says:

    Aaaaaarrrrggghhhh…Can somebody fix all that italics please.

  166. Peter Patton says:

    All this talk about the propriety of using the “ministerial car” is so lame, even disgusting. They say, “oh we’re not homophobic. It’s the corruption and the cover-up you see!”

    One very good sign is that even the callers on talk-back radio have been going absolutely ape AGAINST Channel 7!

  167. Boris says:

    I guess in natural sciences there is a lot less bullshit than in humanities. A lot, but still less.

  168. Peter Patton says:

    Absolutely no doubt about that Boris.

  169. THR says:

    The more general and broad the claim about results from “peer-reviewed journals – ESPECIALLY about individual human behavior in groups – the more likely I will call bollocks. Rebuttable bollocks to be sure

    Except, in this case, the research paper I cited on latent homosexuality has not been critiqued anywhere, and stands as clear support for the thesis that some homophobes harbour latent homosexual desires. Platitudes about peer review (as if there is some better system that is available) don’t change any of the key points here.

  170. Boris says:

    “some homophobes harbour latent homosexual desires.”

    Well, in this weak form this thesis does not require any studies. ‘Some’ is a very weak statement. I will also say that “some engineers harbour latent homosexual desires.” And “some footballers harbour latent homosexual desires.”

    ‘Some’ is not very meaningful.

  171. Peter Patton says:

    And some homosexuals have latent heterosexual desires. 😉

  172. THR says:

    ‘Some’ is not very meaningful.

    You could always suggest a meaningful alternative.

  173. daddy dave says:

    Except, in this case, the research paper I cited on latent homosexuality has not been critiqued anywhere,
    .
    The selection bias problem alone is indefensible, regardless of whether anybody has said so in an academic journal.

  174. Peter Patton says:

    It is curious that the non-“homophobic” men got just as aroused as the “homophobic” men when they were watching the video of gay [female] sex. 😉

  175. Peter Patton says:

    Is the Christian God a sinful homophobic bigot who should repent and seek forgiveness?

    A man honored by President Obama as a “civil rights pioneer” has told a Christian ministry leader the God of the Bible is a “sinful, homophobic bigot” who needs to repent and “seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4,000 years.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121811

Comments are closed.