The "No Bromo" Hypothesis

Author: Swagnarok

Posts

Total: 18
Topic's author
#1
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
This is a total crackpot theory but hear me out guys.

I was born in 1996 and obviously cannot have had experiences predating my birth. What was normative behavior so recently as 1980 is beyond me except so far as depicted in records. Those records tend to be either fictional or do not recount the nitty-gritty mundane-isms of American cultural norms. Therefore, short of asking an older person who was there (which would be an awkward conversation to say the least), I have no way of confirming or debunking this.

But anyways:

In the past, male-on-male interactions often took on a flavor that today would be interpreted as homosexual, homoerotic, etc., though in fact the common people of these times generally didn't think much about the subject if at all.

In the 19th century, strange men might rent a room together for the night and sleep in the same bed. Written correspondences between close male friends might read today as if between lovers. As late as the mid-20th century at least, young men might share a space completely nude in certain sports-related contexts. There were no cultural taboos against such things, whereas the men of 2022 are reportedly careful to avoid giving off "gay interest" signals through their body language and eye contact.

Compared with today, the not-so-distant past was an Eden of intimate male bonding that carried none of the connotations it does today. This was parcel and package to a wider condition where social cohesion between men was greater, the near-ideal state of affairs whose passing was lamented by Robert Putnam. This "civic friendship" enabled broad interest in cooperation and sharing of skills and passions toward a diverse array of overwhelmingly positive ends.

This age did pass, and for many reasons. But it also coincided with the rise of the LGBTQ movement. Suppose that, by introducing a dynamic of homosexual possibility to interactions between American men, the coastal elites shattered group cohesion in areas where emotional/social intelligence was lower. Getting very close to somebody of the same sex without making them feel threatened and scaring them off, especially in the post-adolescent phases of life where making new friends was generally harder for men already, took a certain nuance that with a deficit of said intelligence might prove more challenging.

As history is decided by the best organized factions, this was one trick which helped the old bases of power keep their edge beyond what was otherwise natural. To be clear, I am by no means blaming everything on that one thing. That would be silly. But perhaps it was a factor.
#2
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Swagnarok
You are absolutely correct. A common misconception with inns in the past was that you rented a room, much like you do today or you see within fantasy games. In fact, you rented space on a bed and would tend to share this bed with another person staying in the inn. Often times people would get to know each other and would even 'cuddle' while sleeping, but none of this was seen as anything but normal interaction.

Even more recently you will find many progressives trying to read homoromantic (if not full blown homosexual) undertones in the relationship between Sam and Frodo in Lord of the Rings, but this is due to modern conceptions and not how things were then. The close friendship between Frodo and Sam was based on the close friendships shared between officers and their batman during WWI. Again, nothing gay just a close friendship.

This isn't to say that it isn't wrong to sometimes read gay undertones in places, as there are legitimate areas where it could be seen as appropriate (like with Aran and Asmund from the Norse sagas), but it is done too often as we have shifted away from such closeness with others.
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Swagnarok
Your theory has one glaring flaw.

The most homophobic areas are the least EQ and IQ areas alike.

Take a group of people from Tennessee or Texas and compare their EQ and IQ to a group from California or New Jersey.

Then after analysing the statistics, remove severe outliers and recalculate.

I guarantee you that California will win. This is not bias, it is just reality. Backwards places in the same nation of US clearly have people with less astute mindsets and tendencies.
#4
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Have to say that I feel like you are going to be incorrect to include California in that as the average IQ of California is lower than the average IQ of Texas and Tennessee:

Also, while I am unaware of a similar study in regards to EQ by state, I am aware of this which shows higher empathy and altruism is found in those from rural places:
"The results were that there were more rural adolescents with a high level of altruism and most of adolescents in urban communities are at moderate level of altruism. Overall, the results demonstrated that rural adolescents had a significantly better altruistic score than the urban adolescents."

I wouldn't think it a stretch to assume that New Jersey and California, states with large urban centers, would likely have lower average altruism and empathy scores than states with more rural areas.

So I am sorry, but I have to disagree with your conclusion unless you have a good argument or source to back it up.
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Blind altruism is not high EQ.

High EQ is empathy, good self-awareness and regulations of one's emotions as well as a community that helps its most vulnerable rather than saying they are lazy/trouble and deserve their agony.

There, in fact, is absolutely no way for a LGBT phobic society to have higher average EQ than a significantly LGBT phobic society, simply by nature of how EQ works.
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Please show me empathy or signs of it amongst severely right-wing States, specifically the ones that until very recently, were known to be particularly homophobic.
#7
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11

While California is low, please observe the trend here. Very religious and right-wung states consist of people with lower average IQ. Trends are stronger signals than specific states.

I am not sure how California scored so low, considering some if the best scientific inventing and discovering in America is happening there. Massachusetts being so high is not surprising.
#8
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
as well as a community that helps its most vulnerable rather than saying they are lazy/trouble and deserve their agony.
I have never heard of that as part of one's EQ.

The first half was good, and I would also point out that rural populations not only test with higher altruism and empathy but also report higher average happiness, as can be seen here:
To quote, "This latter finding, which was suggested by the earlier maps, shows that life is significantly less happy in urban areas"

As well as, at least according to the following study, better mental health:
To quote, "Pooled total prevalence rates for psychiatric disorders were found to be significantly higher in urban areas compared with rural areas. Specific pooled rates for mood disorders and anxiety disorders were also significantly higher in urban areas, while rates for substance use disorders did not show a difference."

Higher altruism, empathy, and happiness are much more consistent across various studies while I will admit that there are other studies that suggest the opposite in regards to the issue of mental health (though which is to be trusted more I am not sure).

Even if we add some element of community help (something I was never taught was inherently connected to EQ like you seem to be suggesting), there is even better volunteering data associated with rural residents than urban ones,
To quote, "The survey reveals that both rural and urban residents share similar percentages of voting, volunteering, and charitable contributions. However, over “50% of rural residents reported volunteering in the past year and rural volunteers are more likely than urban or suburban residents to commit to volunteering on a regular basis.”"

Again, these studies are moreso about rural vs urban, but I think they are still relevant.

There, in fact, is absolutely no way for a LGBT phobic society to have higher average EQ than a significantly LGBT phobic society, simply by nature of how EQ works.
I'm going to need a source on your understanding of EQ if you are claiming this, as it is very different than what I learned.
#9
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Very religious and right-wung states consist of people with lower average IQ.
It is more that Southern states tend to have an issue in both categories. North Dakota and South Dakota, until recently, were usually found to be almost as religious as the Southern states but have also consistently scored well in IQ, education, etc. They also don't have poverty issues like the Southern states in question. In fact, North Dakota has consistently been one of the highest scorers in the country when it comes to education and IQ and has only recently been in decline in religiosity.
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
Odd stuff.

Why is it awkward talking to older people?

What is the difference between a "common person" pre and post 1980 or 1996 or whenever?


I would suggest that  sexual interaction between two men is as psychologically taboo today as it ever was, it's just that social acceptability has (sort of) changed.

Lesbianism has never carried the same weight of unacceptability.

And let's not concern ourselves here with T. (Just as taboo and also sort of acceptable).....And the can of worms that is Q. (but only if one asks the right questions)......Nor the huge contradiction that is B.


Interesting that you don't mention popular religion, which to a greater extent is responsible for laying the foundations of sexual repression and moral oppression.


The flavour of homosexuality.
Sort of salty, so I am told........LOL.



What on Earth is this 26 year old on about?


Is this yet another act of justification?
#11
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If you talk percentage, then you are probably right for a simple reason.

The percentage of a smaller, rural community that are gonna be needed to make a food bank, soup kitchen etc function is a significantly larger percentage than the equivalent in a more urban area. The fact is that coincidentally, many rural areas are very right-wing and many urban areas are leaning to (or very) left-wing.

The reason is probably linked to the fact that left-wing parties are more progressive and right-wing are more regressive/reactionary. This means that people into progress even technologically and in the sense of urbanisation are driven there.

That, however, is not what I was referring to and why I didn't particularly mention New York in my example.

What specifically is true with LGBT is that the people who more readily empathise with them and would be okay with two men sleeping in the same bed are the ones least likely to lash out and care if they actually were intimate. The fact that certain areas have a weird double standard of guys hugging and holding hands even being okay in certain contexts but then beating the shit out of somebody for being openly gay in another context, has to do with their lack of EQ, as Swagnarok puts it 'social and intellectual challenged societies'.

This means that his theory backfires because the states most focused on insisting it's okay to be gay are the ones with higher social and intellectual focus within their culture. There is no way somebody with high EQ will bash on and hate a gay person simply for being gay, they'd empathise with them.

#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
What about the socially and intellectually over challenged, challenging of those that don't necessarily wish to be challenged.
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@zedvictor4
What exactly are you asking
#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
I was intrigued by the notion of intellectually challenged societies. As if there is such a specific thing as an unintellectually challenged or intellectually challenged society.

I would suggest that any moral or ethical disagreement is likely to result from ideological differences rather that intellectual disparity.
#15
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
right-wing are more regressive/reactionary
This part here, combined with statements I have seen you make elsewhere, really makes me question how objective you are when it comes to anything politically related.
#16
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
I don't buy the premise that "Compared with today, the not-so-distant past was an Eden of intimate male bonding that carried none of the connotations it does today."

There's still lots of little pockets of non-feminist or anti-feminist culture we can look at for a sense of Western male intimacy before Feminism (and yes, I think Feminism is the primary influence here).  I think modern ME Islamic culture is a good example.  Soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan often expressed astonishment at the male intimacy- holding hands, kissing, sitting on one another laps, etc.  You assume that because the subject of homosexuality is never discussed that the intimacy is less homoerotic but I think that's a mistake.  In spite of severe punishments for gay sex in these places, including the death penalty, these places are also surprisingly gay rapey.  I remember reporter Nic Robertson once saying that there's no gayer place in the world than a Saudi Madrassa- and I believe it.  Look at Vatican City or a Buddhist monastery- quite gay.  US prisons or Russian submarines- quite gay.   What's different is not some "coastal elites shattering group cohesion" by introducing homosexuality.  What's different is that men in Western societies are around women all day long in just about every context.  Women are now allowed to hold men's hands and sit on their laps and kiss men in public settings that were not allowed in your Eden of male bonding.  Women now typically work to achieve levels of intimacy and bonding with their male partners that would have been deemed weak and submissive in earlier times.  A hundred years ago, a man who rushed home to spend time with the wife and kids after work was considered anti-social.  Now that's considered admirable.  80 years ago a man who said his wife was also his best friend would have been considered a weak husband.  Now that's the minimum expectation for a marriage.  There's no doubt that gay rights walk hand in hand with feminism for obvious reasons but I think you've missed the larger, more obvious social shift and I think you are underestimating just how much secret gay sex happens in societies with little or no gay consciousness.





Topic's author
#17
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
I think modern ME Islamic culture is a good example.
The Muslim world is a particularly awful example.

We know that male-on-male sexuality, either pederastic or between adults, was openly celebrated in the Ottoman Empire, and that it's a thing in Afghanistan and Pakistan today. IIRC there was even a Surah/Hadith along the lines of "Stay away from those pretty little boys. I know they're so hot, but just don't do it. Allah doesn't approve and neither do I." Which suggests it was something fundamentally rooted in their culture 1,300 years ago and which never subsequently died.

In contrast, the Western world post-Constantine doesn't have that same track record so the two cases arguably aren't compatible.

Look at Vatican City or a Buddhist monastery- quite gay. 
You have a point. Anywhere from 15-85% of Roman Catholic clergy in the United States are gay. But these institutions do not reflect broader society, nor have they ever. Heterosexual men aren't so quick to join an organization that forbids them from ever feeling a woman's touch so there's a huge self-selection bias at work.
Prison and "boarding school" sexuality are also coercive and more easily explained by a lack of opposite sex partners.

Women are now allowed to hold men's hands and sit on their laps and kiss men in public settings that were not allowed in your Eden of male bonding. 
I didn't claim that everything about that time was perfect. Only that it was closer to ideal in one certain respect.
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Swagnarok
Sexuality is explained by the innate desire to reproduce.

Methodology can be variable.

And we like to read more into these things than is actually necessary.