The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.Hostility and discrimination against homosexual individuals are well-established facts (Berrill, 1990). On occasion, these negative attitudes lead to hostile verbal and physical acts against gay individuals with little apparent motivation except a strong dislike (Herek, 1989). In fact, more than 90% of gay men and lesbians report being targets of verbal abuse or threats, and more than one-third report being survivors of violence related to their homosexuality (Fassinger, 1991). Although negative attitudes and behaviors toward gay individuals have been assumed to be associated with rigid moralistic beliefs, sexual ignorance, and fear of homosexuality, the etiology of these attitudes and behaviors remains a puzzle (Marmor, 1980). Weinberg (1972) labeled these attitudes and behaviors homophobia, which he denned as the dread of being in close quarters with homosexual men and women as well as irrational fear, hatred, and intolerance by heterosexual individuals of homosexual men and women. Hudson and Ricketts (1980) have indicated that the meaning of the term homophobia has been diluted because of its expansion in the literature to include any negative attitude, belief, or action toward homosexuality. Fyfe (1983) has also argued that the broad definition of homophobia threatens to restrict our understanding of negative reactions to gay individuals. Furthermore, Hudson and Ricketts criticized studies for not making the distinction between intellectual attitudes toward homosexuality (homonegativism) and personal, affective responses to gay individuals (homophobia). They indicated that many researchers do not state the operational definition of what they term homophobic. To clarify this problem, Hudson and Ricketts defined homonegativism as a multidimensional construct that includes judgment regarding the morality of homosexuality, decisions

No abstract

Sexual arousal to erotic stimuli depicting various levels of force were examined among college men. Study 1 used phallometric indices to measure penile circumferential change during combined audio-tape and slide presentations varying in degree of force. The results indicated that the sexually coercive group exhibited more penile tumescence than controls to scenes involving verbal pressure and verbal threats. Analyses across time blocks suggested that control participants inhibited sexual arousal with the introduction of force cues but that the sexually coercive group did not. Study 2 was a replication of Study 1 without slides. Both groups showed increases in penile tumescence in response to the consent scenario. Only the sexually coercive men demonstrated significant tumescence in response to force scenarios. The results indicated that the sexually coercive males had a lower threshold for arousal to sexual cues and did not inhibit sexual arousal when force cues were introduced.

No abstract