1. Homosexual fear as a phenomenon.
2. Factors conditioning the appearance of potential source of homosexual arousal in a person’s consciousness.
- First factor. Repressed idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism.
- Second factor. Repressed “sexual relations” with the mother.
- Third factor. “Demonization” of the biological father figure.
- Fourth factor. Blocking the natural channel of libido realization.
3. Factors preventing the person from fighting their homosexual fears.
- Cautious attitude of others.
- Consistency of homosexual images.
4. Cause of homosexual fears.
5. Treatment of homosexual fears.
1. Homosexual fear as a phenomenon.
Homosexual fear is a person’s fear of the possibility that their true sexuality has a homosexual tone.
It is politically correct to call those suffering from homosexual fears “homophobes”, which is exactly what I’m going to do.
When articulating the concept of “homophobia”, it is reasonable to start from etymology of this word, which literally means “the fear of homosexuality”. In this case, etymology exactly reflects the essence of the phenomenon.
A homophobe is an infantile neurotic. Homosexual fears derive from infantile neurotic constitution. They can be considered a payment for one’s desire to feel safe under the wing of a certain almighty parent.
Compared to other forms of infantilism, a homophobe does not have a father identification.
NB. A homophobe’s infantilism has specific features that allow to introduce a concept of homophobic infantilism. This article broadly articulates this concept.
It should be noted that public concept of “homophobia” already has its specific meaning: it is defined as aggression towards all sorts of homosexuality demonstration. Properly speaking, such use of the term “homophobia” is incorrect. When homophobia shows in the form of aggression, it is appropriate to talk about aggressive homophobia and, therefore, an aggressive homophobe.
Homophobia is a fear and not an aggression. Aggression towards homosexuals is a measure of protection from a homosexual fear, but not the fear itself. Observing homosexuality within a society, aggressive homophobe faces the possibility of homosexual arousal appearing in their consciousness. They repress this exact appearance of such possibility by destroying external homosexual stimulus.
At first, a homophobe feels the fear of possibility of homosexual arousal appearing in their consciousness, and only then, if they are prone to aggression, they try to suppress this fear with aggression. In this case, aggression plays the role of destruction of the source of fear.
Confusion with the concept of “homophobia” occurs due to the fact that aggression is the reaction most visually comprehensible by a homophobe. Comprehension is incorrectly identified with the essence of the phenomenon. Aggression is relatively effective, but not nearly a sole method of suppression of the appearance of homosexual arousal. This method of fighting is not even the most popular one. Homophobes most commonly try to avoid the encounter with a homosexual stimulus.
Those suffering from homophobia can be divided into aggressive and uncertain individuals. Aggressive homophobes do not doubt their heterosexual orientation and they are confident that homosexuality is an absolute evil that must be destroyed no matter what the methods. Such non-critical thinking is achieved through belonging to a large referential society united by a battle for its own idea of “good” and “evil” with its own reality principle. Potential source of homosexual arousal of an aggressive homophobe is blocked in the unconscious, that’s why they do not realize that their idea of gay people is a necessary delusion and has no connection to the reality.
As opposed to an aggressive homophobe, an uncertain homophobe’s source of homosexual arousal is in the subconsciousness. Uncertain homophobe knows (or at least feels) that the potential source of homosexual arousal somehow attributed to them. They are not aware of the nature of such attribution, that’s why the darkest thoughts come their mind. Awareness of having a potential source of homosexual arousal does not allow an uncertain homophobe to project it towards gay people, which, therefore, deprives them from the energy to fight gays as an absolute evil.
The important difference between an aggressive homophobe and an uncertain one is psychoanalysis ability, which is much less defined in aggressive homophobes.
Aggressive homophobe prefers the tactics of destroying a homosexual stimulus to the tactics of “walking away” from it. Aggressive homophobe creates the mechanisms in their mind that allow them to accept a homosexual stimulus and put it on the already existing aggressive “cushion”. Aggression blocks the possibility of a homosexual arousal development in a homophobe. This is an effective but costly method: aggressive homophobe must permanently carry this homosexual stimulus in their mind, and just as permanently hate it. Apart from that, cultivating the hatred towards another person does not contribute to mental health.
Basically, only uncertain homophobes can be recognized as those suffering from homosexual fears; aggressive homophobes suffer not from homosexual fears, but from existence of gays. A different matter is that every uncertain homophobe don’t mind finding at least some aggression towards gays in themselves (as I have said before, even slight aggression associated with a gay person (gay image) securely blocks a homosexual arousal with respect to such person). But it’s not easy to do, mainly because gay image is located in the uncertain homophobe’s subconsciousness, and a positive component of relations with this image is not repressed.
Aggressive homophobe also does not lack doubts regarding their sexual orientation. This is evidenced by the necessity of the permanent effort to repress the potential source of homosexual arousal. Aggressive homophobe can not ever stop to get all worked up over the hatred towards gay people.
Trend towards aggression can be found in an uncertain homophobe, while doubts regarding own masculinity can be identified in an aggressive homophobe. Thus, it’s not possible to strictly distinguish an aggressive homophobe from an uncertain one. This division is purely descriptive: aggressive and uncertain homophobes look differently, although it can be the same person described at different times.
Another misconception of the term “homophobia” that I would like to disperse, is an opinion that a homophobe is a latent homosexual. The supporters of this opinion suggest that homophobes should stop “fighting” and start “getting laid”. This cliche is quite popular and is used in mass culture as a pretense to psychological depth of the image. This opinion is wrong. A homophobe is not a latent homosexual exactly for the reason that they do not want to be a homosexual and are afraid of discovering a predisposition towards it in themselves. Additionally, the term “latent homosexual” is a priori incorrect and should not exist. At this point I would like to take a closer look at the “Latent Homosexuality” article.
Homosexual fears are currently taking the form of an epidemic, often becoming an insuperable problem in establishing confidential non-situational relations (acquaintances, friendships, etc.) between same-sex people.
Apart from a corresponding mental dysfunction, persistence of homosexual fears is aided by the conflict between the person’s desire to solve their sexual problems and unavailability of such opportunity. Internal self-identification (answering the question “Who am I?” to self) is practically a complete doubt and insecurity, but when it comes to such delicate and often forbidden subject as personal sexuality, it is much harder to hang upon something certain. If a homophobe could independently solve the problem with their sexuality and be smart in highlighting the key points, they would surely be able to at least stabilize the issue of their homosexual fears, if not solve it.
Suggestion regarding having some latent homosexual nature is a reaction to the following internal stimuli:
- Sexual arousal caused by various homosexual stimuli;
- Having homosexual fantasies and dreams;
- Feeling aesthetic attraction to the same-sex person;
- Feeling insecure and shy in situations requiring “masculine” behavior, and inability to resist physical aggression;
- Problems with communication with the opposite sex and a low level of heterosexual arousal.
When encountering such facts of emotional life (usually a few of them are discovered simultaneously) and not being able to correctly explain their presence, a young man (usually it happens in young men) has a horrific suspicion that he is a latent homosexual.
Homosexual fears strengthen significantly after experiencing an emotional shock caused by inability to answer own question “Is there a chance that I am a homosexual?” convincingly. After having been through such a shock, a man starts to check his sexual nature for homosexuality trying to find negative reactions in themselves to homosexual stimuli. Sooner or later these reactions are found, but the fear of own spontaneous sexual nature remains inside, forcing the man to check himself for the tendency to homosexual reactions again and again.
Exhausted from checking himself for a homosexual inclination, the man tries to shield himself from any stimuli able to cause homosexual reactions (not to see, hear, touch, read or know). He excludes from his everyday life everything that can be even slightly associated with homosexuality. He avoids to be alone with another man without a specific context, such as a business meeting or a chess game.
It is clearly easier for a man to deal with his homosexual fears, if he has fully functional sexual relations with a woman and feels the desire to maintain them. In this case, it is easy for him to prove his own sexual normality, and the intensity homosexual fears weakens.
Inability to answer questions like: “Do I want to touch this guy’s penis?” noticeably complicates the homophobe’s struggle with the idea of having some sort of latent homosexual nature. These questions must be resolved outside the area of direct homosexual experience. But how can one do it here and now?
The more disorganized the person’s normal sexual life is at the moment of homosexual fear appearance, the more serious is this problem. And vice versa, - the more steady sexual relations with the opposite sex are and the stronger sexual arousal to heterosexual stimuli is, the easier it is for the person to get over their homosexual fears.
The situation gets more complicated, when apart from sexual disorganization of mentality due to reasons unaffiliated with the person, their own sexuality gets disorganized by them on purpose in search of an opportunity to unload incestuous libido (See section “Can a normal man get aroused to homosexual pornography?” and the continuation of this section). By experimenting with his sexuality, a man potentially opens to risky sexual experiments, including homosexual ones. How exactly is homosexuality worse than any alternative option, if this is just a meaningless experiment? In this case it is very hard for the man to fight the rush of homosexual stimuli.
The problem of homosexual fears first appears with the start of adolescence crisis and escalates only in the period of transition from the “parental bubble” environment to the “dominant confrontation” environment. A potentially vulnerable homophobe’s mentality feels quite good prior to transition to the “dominant confrontation” environment, and prior to reaching adolescence it feels even great.
Of course, the possibility of receiving a homosexual offer plays an important role in appearance of homosexual fears. If there were no such possibility, there wouldn’t be any homosexual fears. I repeat: a homophobe is not a latent homosexual and has no potencies towards homosexual relations. Their mentality structure has a hard time resisting the possibility of homosexual offer (it is easier to resist such offer per se, than the possibility), but it never creates a homosexual impulse on its own. That’s why the homosexual stimuli that the homophobe is fighting, can be induced in their mentality by an external source only. It should be noted that in the Soviet Union, where, as we know, “there was no sex” (meaning that natural sexual stimuli were quite rare, let alone homosexual ones, which were impossible to find even if one wanted to), there were no homosexual fears as well. Simply said, if the person could not even have an idea of receiving a homosexual offer, they wouldn’t have any homosexual fears, even if they were prone to them: they would have sexual problems with the opposite sex, but no homosexual fears whatsoever.
Mostly heterosexual men suffer from homosexual fears. This is associated not only with the fact that a passive homosexual role eliminates masculinity in a man but does not eliminate femininity in a woman. There is also a number of factors that define the vulnerability of specifically male mentality to the passive homosexual fantasies.
The first of these factors is an obvious (for an unsophisticated observer) cognizance of male sexuality and non-cognizance of female one. At first glance, it seems that the man is the initiator of sexual relations and the main recipient, while the woman is just the victim of male lust; at best, she is an altruistic being desiring the man and supporting his dropping self-esteem with any means available. But in reality it’s not like that, of course: seduction comes from the woman, even though it’s not noticeable at first. A man’s arousal is visible and his sexual desire is easily provable, while a woman’s arousal is easily concealed and, therefore, hard to prove. This factor is particularly important when the person enters the logic of forbidden sexual relations, i.e. relations, for which they will have to be responsible not just to an external judge, but to their own nature.
According to psychoanalytic studies, this “legal” factor becomes extremely important both for stabilization and destabilization of mentality. Inability to relieve oneself of responsibility for even a possibility of participation in a forbidden sexual action can drive a person mad.
A father figure in every man’s mentality has both positive and negative extension. A positive extension ends with idealization of the father, and a negative one - with his demonization. Depending on the need to realize his ultimate causation, the man can use either of the extensions. Being partially inside the consciousness, the used figure extension is more critically processed than the unused one. The unused extension is completely inside the subconsciousness. The stronger is the extension, the deeper it penetrates subconsciousness and, therefore, the lesser it’s available for critique by the reality principle.
The deeper the figure extension is in subconsciousness and the more it’s non-critical, the more it’s open for delusional contents from the unconscious. This last aspect is crucial for understanding the mechanism of homosexual fear appearance. Further we will discuss a specific factor that divides men into more and less prone to fixation on the passive homosexual fantasies, and the ideal extension of the father figure will be the center of that discussion. But now, when we’re talking about the relative unresponsiveness of women with regard to homosexual fears, it makes sense to take a closer look at the negative extension of the same-sex parent, because the specific nature of conflict with the same-sex parent is exactly what defines the compulsiveness of passive homosexual fantasies in men and the fear of being prone to them.
Appearance of the negative extension in the father image is predetermined by the conflict between the son and the father in their fight to possess the mother. This fight and this conflict most often exist only in the child’s imagination (at least right now we’re looking at the world through the child’s eyes), which does not make it any less real for them. As you know, the child wins and the father remains defeated and degraded, he deals with his insignificance and dreams to get back at his son. Negative extension of the father figure can be additionally defined by the concept “vengeful father”, which will bring dynamic depth to the image, together with reality.
“Vengeful father” is powerful, cunning and cruel. To his son he is invincible, and fighting him will certainly lead to defeat and horrible death. Hopelessness of this battle sharpens the man’s masculinity: every man feels his potential vulnerability, though with different degree of insight. Passive homosexual fantasies and homosexual fears derive from this feeling in various complex ways. Female mentality also has the image of vengeful mother, but unlike men, a woman is effectively protected from being accused of seducing her father. Her visible sexual passivity is her protection. A woman is always innocent; it is a woman who is always deceived, seduced or forced. A man is always the initiator of sexual action and therefore, he is always responsible for it.
The problem that can be solved by a woman and can’t be solved by a man can be accurately described by the following scenario: Enraged same-sex parent bursts into a bedroom, where incest is happening, and races to the crime scene screaming “I’ll kill you, bitch!”. At this moment, the horror-stricken son yells to his father: “It’s not my fault, she made me do it!”. The daughter also yells to her mother: “It’s not my fault, he came to me!”. Against his erect member, the son’s explanation doesn’t look convincing , and so he dies a horrible death. Against the father’s erect penis, the daughter’s explanation looks more convincing, and the furious mother is forced to leave swallowing her powerless anger.
This scenario is a detailed structure obtained from the unconscious. Normally, this structure is kind of not present in a man’s consciousness; it’s located in his unconscious in minimized form. I would call it the “black hole of the unconscious”, i.e. a dark unknown dot-sized body of the unconscious, with colossal density and colossal mass, drawing and organizing all objects of the unconscious. This “black hole” lives in the man’s consciousness as a feeling of a possibility of getting into some dead-end situation. But women have no such “black hole”... that’s the point.
This problem can not be resolved by the man without psychoanalysis. It’s mainly because the incest is predefined by the man’s fight to possess his mother and he can not give it up. This conflict can be resolved through the problem repression, i.e. through creating a mental construct that would allow the man to forget about the incest necessity and about his inevitable death of the hands of his furious father. Such construct is the image of an “a priori exceptional social creature obedient to its father’s will”. The logic of this image existence is what generates the compulsion of passive homosexual fantasies and the fear of being prone to passive homosexual role.
There is at least one more factor defining vulnerability of particularly man’s mentality to the thought of being prone to passive homosexual role. The man is less protected in this case because the final acceptance of his submissive status in relation to his father, and the final surrender in the fight for the “master” status (which defines the role of a passive homosexual) most often means that the man has lost his “mother” and that his mentality has been completely destabilized.
NB. I want to remind you that normal mental activity is based on stability of the unconscious expectation of “maternal” treatment by the surrounding reality. A normal (constructive) mentality always contains a concealed assumption that “everything will be OK”, - without it a person is overcome by paralyzing fear and loses the ability to act. However, if the person is naturally (unconsciously) confident that the potential problem will never cross the border of their actual abilities to resolve it, then their mentality is in normal condition. In this sense, the “mother” is not a particular woman who gave birth to the child, but a construct that supports the person in their unconscious confidence in the “kindness” of the world around them, and in the fact that there is some power that will save them if worse comes to worst. But where does this confidence come from? We can identify at least two factors. The first factor is an intuitive feeling of divine world order. The second factor is the period of uterine life, when the surrounding world is literally maternal. These two factors work simultaneously. You can read about it in my articles “Subjectivity Attributes” and “Patterns of Formation and Operation of the Person’s Material Self”.
Here’s the logic of this: the man thinks that his mother chose him over his father and wants him to overthrow the father, to take the master’s place and to safe her from revenge of her repulsive and scary husband. If the son refuses to fight the father, the mother still stands by her choice. Having realized this, she chooses the father over her son.
NB. Psychoanalysis of a gay man shows that his mother values not his masculinity (i.e. the ability to stand against his father), but his potential genius (a priori social exceptionalism). She doesn’t see the kind of value in the ability to behave “manly” that she sees, for instance, in creative and mathematical skills. In short, a gay man’s mother chooses not a man but a “genius” (a priori exceptional social creature) to be her husband. I think that this choice is one of the main factors pushing the child towards homosexual path. Maybe this same factor also determines the degree of compulsion of the passive homosexual fantasies and, therefore, the power of homosexual fears. But this is just a suggestion.
A woman doesn’t have this problem. Her passive homosexual position does not contain the threat to lose her mother, because it’s exactly the mother to whom she would express her symbolic obedience by assuming the role of a passive lesbian. Seeing such extreme obedience of her daughter, the mother only becomes closer to her. This is exactly why the possibility of finding herself in a passive homosexual position does not paralyze the woman the way it paralyzes the man.
2. Factors conditioning the appearance of potential source of homosexual arousal in a person’s consciousness.
When identifying the factors conditioning the appearance of potential source of homosexual arousal in a person’s consciousness, essentially we have to explain the person’s helplessness before the imaginary threat of turning into a gay.
The source reason causing homosexual fears is disorganization of the natural sexuality of a person that takes place in the process of inadequate resolving of the Oedipus/Electra complex. But this explains very little: not every case of the natural sexuality disorganization develops into homosexual fears. Appearance of potential source of homosexual arousal in the person’s consciousness is caused by specific factors discussed below.
I discuss the establishment of the Oedipus/Electra complex in detail in my article “Patterns of Formation and Operation of the Person’s Material Self”.
Specific factors conditioning the appearance of potential source of homosexual arousal in a person’s consciousness in the process of inappropriate resolution of the Oedipus/Electra complex can be generalized by the term “homophobic infantilism”. At the same time, the term “uncertain homophobe” perfectly defines the person whose mental constitution can be appropriately described by the term “homophobic infantilism”. An aggressive homophobe’s mentality is shaped in a way different than that of an “uncertain homophobe”.
The following factors can be described as the ones conditioning the appearance of potential source of homosexual arousal in a person’s consciousness: repressed idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism; repressed sexual nature of relations with the mother; “demonization” of the biological father figure; blocking the natural channel of libido realization. Based on my observations, “uncertain homophobes” (as I have said before, only they are subjected to psychoanalysis) also experience early sex development. I would call it a “physiological” factor, which can also be included to the discussed specific factors.
First factor. Repression of the emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism.
The repressed emphasis on the personal aprioristic social exceptionalism is easily detected in the homophobic infantilism structure. The homophobe does not speak of his aprioristic social exceptionalism, it’s assumed by him - the vis-a-vis must think of it on their own.
It is easier for the homophobe to emphasise his aprioristic social exceptionalism in an all-women company; such positioning is very hard when he is surrounded by men only.
NB. It should be noted that the structure of repression of the emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism is different in aggressive and uncertain homophobes. Both of them repress their emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism through the idea of their insignificance as a man. But unlike the uncertain homophobe, the aggressive one also represses the idea of his masculine insignificance. Such repression is realized by means of deliberately aggressive masculine image. “Masculinity” of the aggressive homophobe is always demonstrative and for show; it’s purpose is to convince the public of the over-the-top masculinity of its host. This is exactly why “masculinity” of the aggressive homophobe is comprised of the masculinity symbols recognized as such in his referential environment.
The structure of repression of the emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism is stronger in the aggressive homophobe than in the uncertain one, which doesn’t encourage his good mental health at all. The further the repressed mental structure is from the consciousness, the less this structure is controlled by the reality principle. In particular, the uncertain homophobe seems much less ambitious during communication than the aggressive one. The uncertain homophobe’s emphasis on the personal aprioristic social exceptionalism is closer to the consciousness and is shown in a more critical way than in the case of the aggressive one. Additionally, this idea is more easily subjected to critique in the uncertain homophobe, - due to the closeness to the consciousness. Ambitiousness of the uncertain homophobe is not only “smarter”, but also more trainable and adaptable than that of the aggressive one.
I discussed the functional role of the emphasis on the personal aprioristic social exceptionalism in my article “Patterns of Formation...”. The significance of this idea is enormous in terms of control over mental processes, that is why it’s highly stable even in the absence of any reasonable arguments to support it, let alone when the person manages to find some anyway.
The homophobe supports the emphasis on his aprioristic social exceptionalism with a few ideas-arguments, such as idea of having extraordinary skills in a certain activity; idea of having an exclusive access to the source of aesthetic and moral sensibility; idea of predominant personal sexual and aesthetic value; idea of being privileged (some exclusive relations with the ultimate cause of the world). It’s safe to say that these ideas-arguments are expanded to the form of idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism, with the latter being the basis.
Not all ideas-arguments are conscious. Only the most critical ones are. For instance, the homophobe is always willing to speak about their creative achievements even when they are not that obvious. The less critical the idea-argument is, the deeper it’s located in the subconsciousness. But if an appropriate referential environment appears, it can reach the consciousness even from the unreachable depths of subconsciousness. For example, the idea of predominant personal sexual value is “lodged” deeply into subconsciousness; the homophobe never speaks of their predominant sexual value, but when a woman or a man starts chasing them deliriously like some precious prize, then such adoration and chase won’t seem that absurd to them. The idea-argument of being exceptional is deeply “lodged”, but if an appropriate referential environment appears, the homophobe can easily become a “guide” for some “higher forces”. Sometimes the idea-argument becomes so needed that the homophobe starts to look for a suitable referential environment for its actualization.
In the context of etiology of the problem of homosexual fears, it is important to pay special attention to the repressed idea of personal predominant sexual value. The problem is that this particular idea is repressed from the consciousness: the homophobe never speaks or thinks of their predominant sexual value, even though this idea is the basis of their social positioning. Even a shallow analysis can easily identify this disbalance. For instance, the problem of public business project presentation became solvable when the analysand realized that during the presentation they hold themselves out not as a smart person, but as a pretty one.
In the homophobe’s head their sexuality becomes predominant due the idea being repressed, i.e. if it’s repressed, it’s non-critical. The homophobe thinks that everybody wants him and that he is a precious prize for anyone, but objectively it’s the opposite: the homophobe’s sexuality is highly selective. This holds the problem of the homophobe’s critical rethinking of his total sexual failures. According to his subconscious scenario, there should be no failures. That’s why when another beautiful girl (homophobes always pick only “high-status” girls) doesn’t notice him at all, he loses any ability to think, and plunges into his familiar masculine insignificance.
Exactly for the reason that the idea of personal sexuality is repressed, it can become related to the homosexuality. If the man knows for sure that he is a highly valuable sexual object, but does not know for whom exactly, the place of such “enthusiast” can absolutely be taken by a male figure. It is even more probable given that the homophobe subconsciously seeks to meet his “ideal” father (to be discussed below) and rejects the mother figure as a suitor for his worthless body, even though the homophobe unconsciously forms his sexual image to suit the mother’s needs.
NB. It would be appropriate to say a few words about the possibility of appearance of the idea of personal predominant sexual value in a homophobe. We can suggest that this possibility is the parents’ treatment of their child during the first two-three years of the its life. In this period, even the parents with flat emotionality experience heightened tenderness towards their child and overwhelming urges to snuggle and kiss its little feet. Considering the schizoid nature of the homophobe’s mentality (which means very early start of continuous memory), the possibility of developing by the child of the idea of supreme value of its body seems very probable during this period. Additionally, taking into account the fact that the child can remember the parents’ words accompanying these snuggles and kisses, it becomes more clear why the homophobe thinks that he is so “sweet”, “delicious” and so “I-could-eat-you-up”. We can’t also completely disregard the possibility that the tactile admiration of the body remembered by the child came not from its “cold” parents, but from relatives or even strangers.
The depth of repression (the power of resistance) is always directly proportional to the destructive potential of repressed emotion. In particular, the idea-argument of personal “uniqueness” and the one of personal predominant sexual value are repressed by the homophobe particularly deep for the reason that these ideas have a high destructive potential comparatively to other pathogenic emotions. Both ideas latently contain relations with the mother, which further expand to the unconscious through incestuous fantasies. These fantasies form the core of repressed material, becoming the biggest threat to mentality. We can say that the purpose of repressing the idea of personal “uniqueness” and the one of personal predominant sexual value from the consciousness is to keep incestuous fantasies in the unconscious.
Being left without critical supervision by the reality principle, the idea of personal “uniqueness”, together with the one of personal predominant sexual value, start to mutate into a gay image under the influence of the entropy law. As a result of this mutation, two compulsions appear in the homophobe’s consciousness: a compulsive association with the gay image and a compulsive drive to have a homosexual experience. These compulsions form the core of the structure perceived by the homophobe as a potential source of homosexual arousal. Let’s discuss these compulsions in detail.
Compulsive association with the gay image. All infantile mentalities (including that of a gay and a homophobe) have something in common. Being subdued by the father’s will, all infantile neurotics compensate through emphasizing the idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism.
NB. The idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism is present in every person, but normally it’s balanced by ontological feeling of everybody’s equivalence. In pathological case, the person makes a false emphasis on their aprioristic social exceptionalism, trying to falsely ignore the ontological feeling of equivalence. It’s impossible to comprehend one’s aprioristic social exceptionalism in pure form, because it’s impossible to get rid of the ontological feeling of equivalence. In this case, the person can at most comprehend their aprioristic social exceptionalism as a “uniqueness”, which means some exclusive relations with the ultimate cause of the world. The ontological feeling of equivalence structures the context of “uniqueness”: the unique “chosen one” is always sent to mankind with some mission. Depending on the density of the reality principle, the mission-related context is comprehended more or less critically.
Depending on the integrity of the common sense, this idea takes more or less critical shape. Gays, whose sense of reality is really weak, cultivate this idea of themselves to the least critical extent, - in the form of “uniqueness” delusion: gays openly hold themselves out as some divine creatures, who are a priori different from the “masses”. The homophobes’ sense of reality is way better, that’s why they can’t openly declare themselves unique. They cradle this sweet but yet unexpressed thought somewhere in the subconsciousness (sometimes not very deep). The homophobe lives like he’s just like everyone else, but somewhere in the subconsciousness there is a sweet dream of an “endless celebration” that’s been waiting for him for some reason.
I repeat, the problem is that the idea of personal uniqueness is locked by the homophobe in subconsciousness. Everything that can’t be comprehended, can’t be subjected to critique: the person can’t verify the reality of the idea that practically doesn’t exist.
Due to not being adjusted by the reality principle, the idea of personal uniqueness becomes the homophobe’s unconscious ideal; therefore, all those lucky people, who openly live the “unique ones’”life, also become unconscious ideals. But oh snap, - all these “lucky ones” are mostly gay; at least gays put a lot of effort to being perceived by the public as special people, i.e. people from the “endless celebration”. It might seem a paradox, but encountering a gay person is essentially meeting an ideal for the homophobe. Until the idea of personal uniqueness passes through the reality principle critique, gay people will be the most distinct representatives of the cohort of “unique ones” from the “endless celebration”. Of course, homosexuality is not a part of the homophobe’s plan, but uniqueness and “endless celebration” are; therefore, meeting a person from this “celebration” would always be a much-anticipated event for him.
Unexpectedly for the homophobe, the image brought to life by the gay person turns out to be the ideal object for projection of his own ideal. The homophobe’s unconscious ideal easily falls into the gay image. Such easiness is conditioned exactly by unconsciousness of the ideal. If the homophobe knew his ideal better than he knows himself, this projection would be more problematic, and involuntary identification with the gay image would be unstable, to say the least.
Not realizing the basis of his compulsive attention towards glamorous gays and trying to eliminate the possibility of having any homosexual predisposition, the homophobe starts to tantalize and scan himself for homosexual tastes.
Tantalizing is necessary in this case: it’s not that easy to tear yourself from your ideal, especially if this ideal is unconscious, and it’s hard to fight something that kind of doesn’t exist. But the homophobe is not aware of all these nuances of his mentality structure and perceives the fact of torment as the proof of homosexual predisposition, which, of course, does not make his life happier.
NB. With regard to this subject, it could be useful to refer to the Q&A page, particularly to the question “I have a problem of homosexual fears, - this is how I formulated it...”.
One can’t be “Jove” and refrain from trying on a perfect free will in everything, including sexual behavior. The unconscious “uniqueness” has another serious pitfall for the homophobe. The point is that the “uniqueness” is not a statement of the fact, but a process that has its own logic. This logic can be precisely expressed through the formula “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” (“What is permissible for Jove is not permissible for an ox”). A person holding themselves out as the one different from the others by some aprioristic attribute must compulsively match themselves against the “oxen”. Concurrence of their tastes and opinions with the tastes and opinions of the “oxen” involuntarily diminishes the predominant value of the “unique one”, which is very painful to them. If there is no talent or if it’s not sufficient to produce a corresponding product, then the person uses their pursuance of free will (i.e. the principle “the chosen ones are allowed to do anything”) as the aprioristic criterion of their uniqueness. Here is exactly where the self-reflecting homophobe faces a pitfall, - this “everything-is-permitted” turns out to be extremely limited in terms of priorities selection: the all-permitted is only what’s impossible for an “ordinary” person. The “unique one” compulsively tries to do something that is bizarre for most people. If he can (and even better - loves) to do things that are unacceptable and unnatural to others, this means he is the “unique one”, that he is God. Paolo Pasolini’s movie “Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom” is a great illustration to this thesis. The pretense to being unique ultimately develops into unthinkably perverted sex, coprophagia and refined child killings.
As it so happens, psychoanalysis has not avoided the narcissistic logic either. I was once astonished by the characteristic given by Freud to a young man, who was undergoing Freud’s psychoanalysis. He said something like this: “As a true philosopher, he was able to get aroused only by someone’s fresh feces”. It’s unclear what the philosophy has to do with this, but Freud gave no explanations to this strange statement. One should be careful with psychoanalysts.
Again, the problem is that the homophobe’s idea of personal “uniqueness” is repressed, otherwise he would have natural questions regarding the unnatural urges. However, in this case, the urges are present, but it’s impossible to ask the questions.
Against the background of luxurious front face of homosexual life, the homophobe thinks of himself as a coward hiding from a homosexual experience, and correspondingly, he thinks of gays as “Joves” because they do whatever they want disregarding all prohibitions and taboos. The possibility to have a homosexual experience becomes the homophobe’s compulsion as it starts to correlate with his idea of personal dignity. “If I’m not a trembling creature and I do have the right, then why am I covering with cold sweat just from the thought of having sex with that handsome guy?”, - this is an approximate text compulsively sounding in the homophobe’s head.
Obviously, he doesn’t realize that the issue is not about cowardice or bravery, and that it’s actually his reality principle that’s been covering in sweat when sensing an upcoming unnatural experience; but he doesn’t know about it and tortures himself trying out the possibility of having a homosexual experience.
Second factor. Repressed “sexual relations” with the mother.
NB. The term “sexual relations” is used in this context in quotes, because practically there are no sexual relations between the homophobe and his mother, there is only a possibility of them. Sometimes this possibility acquires flesh and the boy talks about sexual offers from his mother and his incestuous fantasies as of some continuous event. But even in this case we’re talking about only a possibility of an event: analysis shows that the mother’s sexual offer is only the boy’s interpretation of the mother’s behavior, and his personal incestuous fantasies do not become an emotional driver to real actions.
The “sexual” component of relations with the mother is the common part of any type of Oedipus complex, and at the same time it’s the most intense part of this complex. This intensity is conditioned by inevitable necessity to repress incestuous fantasies that inevitably grow around the boy’s “sexual” relations with his mother. It’s particularly relevant to the homophobic infantilism due to the fact that in the homophobe’s mind, his mother sees some kind of predominantly valuable sexual object in him.
The homophobe sees himself as a sexual object predominantly valuable to his mother, and we should make a special emphasis on this. Non-criticality of this idea stands out on the one hand, and its resistance to critique on the other hand. This inconsistency is easily resolved: it’s all about its desirability. It is vitally important to the homophobe (just like to any infantile neurotic) to restore emotional unity with his mother. This need is so strong that the child becomes completely indiscriminate in the means. He uses every thought that allows him to chase away the fear to be abandoned by the mother. The thought of his body being predominantly valuable to his mother helps to resolve this problem. I would like to remind you that at the moment of its origination, the thought of his body being of predominant sexual value to his mother is not that absurd. During the child’s first years of life, the parents really “breathe” with it. This thought becomes absurd only when it acquires sexual extension.
The idea of the predominant value of his body inevitably transfers into the idea of personal predominant sexual value. And here’s the reason why. As the person grows, the idea of predominant sexual value of his body to his mother becomes less critical, and so the internal threat of being abandoned by the mother grows. The idea of personal predominant sexual value becomes sort of a “package” for the idea of predominant value of the body, which makes this idea more critical and allows to preserve its “calming” effect.
As I have said before, the idea of predominant value of personal sexuality stabilizes the most complex mental problem of the homophobe – to possess his mother. It is extremely important to the homophobe to be not just sexy, but predominantly sexually valuable, because only then the mother will have no choice, and only the predominant value of his sexuality will make his mother to desire him only.
Additionally, there is another factor making the homophobe continuously work on the criticality of the idea of predominant value of personal sexuality. It is highly important to the homophobe that a woman initiates sexual relations, because only then he becomes innocent in his jealous father’s eyes and avoids horrible and painful death.
It would be appropriate to say a few words about the way the homophobe makes an originally non-critical idea of predominant value of personal sexuality resistant to critique. There is a standard pattern. Any delusional idea, to which of course belongs the idea of predominant value of personal sexuality, can pass the reality principle critique only through the approval by the Other One, and only in the form of personal symbol that the Other One must read correctly.
One of the missions of the Other One in the person’s mentality is to support non-critical but essential ideas of themselves. The Other One’s prototype is always the mother or, to be exact, the child’s vision of its mother. I discussed this matter in detail in another article. The emphasis on the fact that the mother is the Other One’s prototype allows to resolve the paradox of an absolute resistance to critique of a completely non-critical image of a predominant sexually valuable creature. Any critique of the homophobe’s idea of personal predominant sexual value will be shattered by the mother’s delighted look, which he sees as a proof of his predominant sexual value.
“Delighted look of the mother” is the homophobe’s interpretation of the mother’s attitude towards him, which is based on the predetermined conclusion of his predominant sexual value. As a predetermined conclusion, the predominant sexual value will be read by the homophobe off any look of his mother, even a disappointed one. I had to tell my analysands the following on multiple occasions: “Why are you so sure that your mother is hungry for your penis? Maybe she’s fussing over you because of her motherly compassion and not because you are a “sexy prize”. It’s completely possible that her heart aches at the sight of your thin and sickly body. Or maybe she’s tormented by guilt and disappointment?”.
Typically, the homophobe doesn’t need his mother’s presence in order to maintain the idea of his predominant sexual value. It’s enough that adoration with his sexuality had once occurred, and therefore, it’s still potentially possible. Once this possibility appears, any well- or ill-affected woman’s (or man’s) look will remind the homophobe about his “mother’s delighted look”, which will stabilize his essentially absurd idea of his predominant sexual value.
It would be appropriate to remind you about another mechanism to stabilize a non-critical idea of self. In my article “Patterns...” I emphasized the fact that any neurotic image is put on a “body” of the emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism. This is a necessary condition for any neurotic image existence. Being worn by the “body” of the emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism, even the most absurd neurotic image acquires a legitimate status. Generally, this is a quite clear thesis: a true aristocrat or a recognized genius can be forgiven for any extravagances. For instance, Dali sincerely believed that everything made by him was highly valuable to the public; he even managed to sell his feces. Of course, not the fact that he was selling it is important, but that people were buying it.
The idea of personal predominant sexual value is not an exception from the rule: just like any other neurotic image, this one is “put on” the emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism. And just like in any other case, the idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism legitimatizes the idea of predominant sexual value. Although objectively it’s a complete absurd, the statement that the unique one’s phallus is also sort of special sounds not that absurd at first.
The special factor defining absolute resistance to critique of the homophobe’s absolutely non-critical idea of his predominant sexual value is that both legitimization of the image of an a priori exceptional social creature and legitimization of the emphasized idea of predominant personal sexual value come from the same source: the mother’s “delighted look” enables existence of both delusional ideas, each of which makes the homophobe’s phallus “divine”.
The special feature of the homophobe’s “sexual” relations with his mother is their obviousness to the son. It is easy for the homophobe to see the seduction in the mother’s behavior towards him. His mother makes almost all (and sometimes all) the mistakes I described in the article “Prevention of Adolescent Mental Disorders (A Guide for Parents)”. And even though these are just the mistakes (in most cases no actual seduction takes place), it’s hard for the child to get rid of the thought that his mother wants to have sex with him.
We observe a mutual induction of two delusional ideas in the relations between the homophobe and his mother: the mother unconsciously projects the image of her ideal man on the son, and the son unconsciously projects the image of his ideal woman on his mother. Such mutual induction results in some sort of “gruesome twosome”, whose participants have to fight the possibility of appearance of incestuous arousal. Homosexual fantasies are the weapon in this battle, and homosexual fears are its consequences.
As I have said multiple times, homosexuality is an extreme form of repression of the incest possibility. When the incest becomes an obsession, the child involuntarily(!) transfers its libido onto a homosexual object. Being the farthest from the mother’s image, the homosexual object handles the function of incestuous fantasies repression perfectly. This aspect is obvious during the psychoanalysis: as soon as the analysand encounters sexual extension in his relations with the mother, he immediately develops homosexual fears.
The problem of homosexual fears appears mainly because the “sexual” aspect of relations with the mother is repressed by the homophobe. When repressed, sexual relations with the mother seem more appealing than they can actually be. But this is not the main point. Repression of the sexual aspect of relations with the mother deprives the homophobe of possibility to get to the basic Oedipus complex issues that form the context of these relations.
NB. All factors listed in this section are specific to a gay person as well, with the only difference that for the gay, they are not emphases, but acute psychotic formations. For example, the “uncertain” homophobe’s emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism can reach the consciousness through the reality principle only in the form of subtle pretense with multiple reservations, doubts and digressions, while the gay declares his uniqueness like it’s something obvious that can’t be doubted or discussed. Practically, the homophobe’s consciousness (especially that of an “uncertain” one) is in the state of personal male insignificance, while the gay enjoys his exceptionalism in the midst of dominating“trash”.
Since we’ve touched the subject of similarities between the homophobe and gay mentality, I should also say a few words about the fundamental differences between these two mental constitutions. There are at least two of these differences. The gay’s love for his mother is repressed. He distances himself from her quite consciously and just as consciously he has only negative feelings for her. The homophobe, on the contrary, is closely attached to his mother. His love for the mother is exaggerated and her image is idealized. As opposed to the gay, who is purposefully not a man in his relations with the mother, the homophobe holds himself out as his mother’s man, hope and support. The second fundamental difference is the attitude towards homosexuality. The homophobe would do anything not to be gay, while the gay is prepared to do anything to be one. The homophobe doesn’t want to be gay and uses all means to fight the potential source of homosexual arousal in himself. The gay, quite opposite, holds onto his homosexuality at all costs.
Third factor. “Demonization” of the biological father figure.
I have said more than once that homosexuality is the ideal resolution of Oedipus complex. If not for ontological intuition suggesting that homosexuality is the path to non-existence and aesthetic frustration from watching this non-existence, the number of gays and lesbians would be way higher.
We can talk about the following pattern: the more complicated Oedipus complex is and the harder it is for the young man to repress the possibility of incestuous compulsions appearance, the sooner a potential source of homosexual arousal will appear in his mentality. The gay image solves all “Oedipean” problems, that’s why he unconsciously attracts all those suffering from these problems. The more there are suffering people, the more he attracts.
One of the main characteristics of homophobic infantilism is the absence of identification with biological father.
The third factor determining the appearance of potential source of homosexual arousal is the necessity to cultivate a strongly negative image of the father as a possibility of repression of incestuous impulse. The same pattern is visible here: the brighter is the possibility of incestuous impulse appearance, the stronger is the need to fear the father, the more negative his image becomes in the son’s eyes, and the more potentially attractive becomes the means of leveling the father’s dominating aggression. This means is contained in the gay image.
NB. We should emphasize the fact that the negative image of the father is not always conscious. It’s often not possible to reach the fear of father; in most cases it’s either unconscious or is somewhere deep in subconsciousness.
The fear of father is repressed through idealization of his image. Idealized father figure seems an unconditional authority to the son, and he obeys him not because of fear, but because he sees the father as the truth bearer. That’s why the son delegates him a legislative function in connection with his own actions. This model is mostly common to traditional societies. In this society, the son never faces the need to repress the fear of father, because even the possibility of conflict with the truth bearer is foolish, shameful and abnormal, and, therefore, it becomes a priori eliminated by the reality principle.
Suppressed free will is a distinctive feature of the person with repressed fear of father. The ideal of his psychological me replaces his super-ego. The farther from the consciousness is the fear of father, the more comfortable the person feels in the role of carrier of some “true values” and the more enthusiastically the person handles their controlled existence.
The third factor has a complex structure. We can break it down into a potential source of homosexual impulse and at least two factors facilitating actualization of this potential. The first factor is the necessity to repress incestuous impulses. The second factor is transition from the “parental bubble” to the “dominant confrontation” environment.
The potential source of homosexual impulse is an infantile image of an “a priori exceptional child obedient to its father’s will”. This formula of infantile image consists of two parts, both of which work for the appearance of a potential source of homosexual arousal in child’s mentality. An “a priori exceptional child” extends to the “unique one” when needed. The idea of “unique one” easily becomes the source of homosexual impulse, as I’ve discussed above. The third factor in question is associated with the concept of “obedient to the father’s will”. Even on the level of simple intuition, one can see that the term “obedient” under certain conditions can transform into the term “passive” with homosexual definition.
I discussed the development of the “Obedient...” image in detail in my article “Patterns...”. And now I only would like to remind you that this image contains a big functional load. By helping the child to resolve the problem of possessing the mother and neutralizing the father’s aggression, this image becomes necessary to the child. The nature of this necessity strengthens in the future, when this image is complemented by the function of repressing the possibility of incestuous fantasies development. The emphasis on the necessary nature of identification with the “Obedient...” image is highly important in the context of the problem in question: the homophobe mistakes this necessity for predisposition to the role of “obedient”, which then combines with the fear of having some sort of latent homosexuality.
The image of “Obedient...” remains relatively comfortable for the child for quite a long time, - until the appearance of the necessity to repress the possibility of incestuous impulses developing in the consciousness. This not only because this image solves the child’s serious problems, as I described before. The negative father’s image “obeyed” by the child is mostly an artificial formation. In reality, the father is rather a positive character in the child’s life than a villain. Thus, it’s not that degrading to obey such “aggressor”. The image of “Obedient...” clearly shows an element of a game or play directed by the child.
The negative image of the father appears naturally: at some point the father is perceived by the child as the opponent in the fight for his mother. However, the negative status of the father’s image is maintained by the child artificially. For instance, it’s obvious that the father’s aggressive image gives the child invisible dividends. The son thinks that the father is angry because he lost the fight for the mother to his son. The mother chose the son because she saw an aprioristic uniqueness in him, and the father’s anger is perceived by the son as a proof of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism.
Sensing the context, the son smiles inside when the father snaps at him for no obvious reason. Despite the fear of the unfolding action, the son enjoys the play titled “Enchanted Prince and the Beast”. Not only it nurtures his ego, but also eliminates the permanent problem of losing his mother, which indirectly predetermines her future choice. The father is angry because he’s powerless and senses his potential (!) inability to influence his wife’s choice that would degrade him.
In reality, the child fights his father only inside his consciousness and immediate subconsciousness, where the father is a scary and devious enemy prepared to do anything. But somewhere in the background, almost in the child’s unconscious, there is a thought that this is not a real war, that his father loves him and that he loves his father too. This thought makes the child more confident and facilitates the desire to “fight”. It can be proved by the son’s confidence (that may seem strange at first) that the father fights him following the known rules, which he can not break, and even if his father destroys him, that would be only after finding the evidence. But why does the hateful father need any evidence? Why can’t he destroy the son just out of hatred? The answer is obvious: Because on the level of deep subconsciousness the child is sure that this war isn’t real and that his father would not ever harm him for real.
NB. I’ll give you an example. At one of my sessions, my analysand (a young man with moderately criminal tendencies) somewhat defiantly insisted that there’s nothing shameful in fraud, because fraud is a job for the “smart and talented”, and the symbol of their superiority over “patsies”. I commented that his criminal enthusiasm is totally based on the unconscious confidence in love of these “patsies”. For some reason it hadn’t occurred to him that these “patsies” (who, evidently, represent the most part of population) can adopt a law binding to physically eliminate all conmen, as it happened throughout the history multiple times. In reaction to this remark, the young man responded as a reflex: “But it’s against the rules!”. After this session, the father’s image lost its explicitly negative nature to the analysand, and his memory provided a few repressed events depicting the father as caring and loving. In particular, the analysand remembered how in an attempt to protect his mother he injured his father’s head with a glass. The blow was so strong that the glass shattered, and the analysand himself sustained a cut. It should be noted that the analysand doesn’t see it significant that the father didn’t try to kill him afterwards, but being hurt himself, took him to the hospital and visited him there without any blame. Strictly speaking, I questioned the analysand for details of the father’s behavior, trying to recreate the event as completely as possible. In the analysand’s consciousness, this event was restricted to his “righteous anger” and the fact that he also got cut. This example shows how the negative image forms. Out of the whole event, the person leaves only those details that will help them get the needed conclusion through the reality principle. And the details disproving this conclusion are ignored and considered insignificant.
No rejection by the homophobe of the “Obedient...” image is also clearly noticeable in the analysis. Inside the psychoanalytic process, the homophobe aims to assume the role of an obedient player and makes many efforts to maintain it. It’s very hard for the psychoanalytic to convince him of absurdness of the events. It has to be done throughout the entire analysis, because the homophobe uses every opportunity to return to the “obedient...” image. And every time the psychoanalytic has to drag him out of it, and every time it takes a lot of effort. If not for the threat of insanity, the homophobe would never leave his warm infantile home.
The negative component of the father’s image receives a powerful growth impulse after the child develops the need to repress incestuous urges. The fear of father and the feeling of personal smallness (imperfection, immaturity, unpreparedness to be a man) in comparison to him eventually becomes enough to eliminate the possibility of coitus with the mother and simultaneously the possibility to face incestuous impulses. The child unconsciously (!) adjusts the father’s image and the nature of relations with him to this need of repression: according to the child’s perception, the father becomes even more almighty, more destructive and more potentially dangerous. Such “demonization” of the father figure is beneficial for the son, whose mentality realizes this unconscious request, thus turning it into a provable subjective reality.
As long as there is an “almighty and wicked” father in the homophobe’s world, who can always punish him for the wrongful relations with his mother, he feels relatively safe: his mentality arranges in a way that coitus with the mother becomes impossible. Once the “almighty and wicked” father disappears, the boy is left alone with the lusty mother, and the possibility of forbidden coitus reappears. It should be noted that the analysand isn’t eager to lose his fears of father. Even when during the psychoanalysis all possible threats become available to the consciousness and it becomes clear that the father is not “almighty” anymore and had never been that, the analysand uses desperate intellectual efforts to save the possibility to be afraid.
NB. I described how exactly the negative father’s image helps the child to repress the possibility of encountering incestuous impulses in my article “Patterns...”. I’ll only repeat the main aspects now.
The “almighty and wicked” father is like a hellhound at the mother’s bed - he controls everything that takes place there. The presence of the “almighty and wicked” father allows the child to block the possibility of coitus with the mother and put his mind at ease with regard to such possibility. “All-might” and “wickedness” of the father become some kind of a tool helping the child to control “sexual” relations with his mother. The unconscious dialogue between the son and the mother sounds approximately like this: “Look, - he says to his mother pointing at the hellhound father, - you can see for yourself that I can’t confront him now and become a fully functional husband for you. We need to wait for me to grow up and become stronger, otherwise he’ll kill us both”.
Apart from creating a “technical” impossibility of coitus with the mother, the absolutely negative father’s image helps the homophobe to utilize his incestuous libido that he produces in great amounts with appearance of the possibility to encounter incestuous impulses. Such utilization takes place through the fear. The fear can “burn” any amount of incestuous libido. Once drained of all energy, incestuous impulses (fantasies) lose their destructive force. At the face of death no one cares about sex..
Besides the reaction to a new turn in the father’s image demonization, the need of repression strengthens the compulsion of the “Obedient...” image. In the new context, an infantile component is emphasized in the “Obedient...” image – an “... a priori exceptional child”. Aprioristic exceptionalism is present off screen, while the picture shows the “child” with all its male wussiness, irrelevance and maladjustment to life. Transformation of the “Obedient...” image is led by the need of repression of the possibility to encounter incest. For this purpose, the term “child” is gradually and unjustifiably switched for a congruent term “not yet a man”, and gets locked in this position.
While the future homophobe is in the image of “not yet a man”, the incest possibility is securely locked, that’s why he eagerly identifies himself with this image. Luckily, such identification is not particularly noticeable in adolescent years. There is an internal logic in the image of “not yet a man”. This logic is defined by the need of repression, - the “still” young man tries to make permanent the process of passing some aprioristic gap between him and a man.
This “gap” is visible inside the psychoanalytic procedure. It’s noticeable that the analysand is doing his best to feel and act as a “real man”, but he doesn’t know how exactly real men feel and act. His emotions concerning his male worthlessness show resignation and inner submission to personal original non-masculine essence. The only thing that the honophobe wants is to avoid suspicions in his latent homosexuality.
NB. Ideally, the homophobe wants the girl to see his male worthlessness as a potential genius, to lose her mind over such luck and to start satisfying his sexual needs.
“Demonization” of the father figure with simultaneous abandoning of the masculine component of personal image is the potential that nurtures homosexual fears. As they say, “You got what you fought for”. Didn’t want to be a man, so get tormented by the question: “If I’m not a man, then who am I?”. There are not many answers to that.
One last “touch to the portrait”. In order to imagine the process of homosexual fears appearance “in living color”, we need to start with the fact that the homophobe (just like any other neurotic) lives in his own idea of the world around us as in reality. This means that he really perceives his father as a “monster” prepared to destroy him any moment, and therefore, he is really scared to communicate with him. I usually use the following metaphor to describe this thesis: “When drawing his own scary world, the neurotic achieves such vividness, that he really dies in the jaws of the tiger he drew!”. In this case, the homophobe convincingly draws his father’s all-might and wickedness, that he can’t do anything else but to admit his inevitable defeat in the open battle with his father. The enemy is fake but the defeat is real, and so are the consequences.
Inevitability of defeat and death in this “man-to-man” battle with the father facilitates the development of a “female” algorithm of conquering the father in the unconscious. In my understanding, the “female algorithm” means subduing the father in a non-conflict way, i.e. through charming, seducing, satisfying, entertaining, etc. Once this “female algorithm” appears in the homophobe’s consciousness, there is no sexual extension. Seduction can be done, for instance, by means of intellect, creativeness or luxuriousness. Sexual extension appears later, after transition from the “parental bubble” to the “dominant confrontation” environment, when the homophobe starts to reflect on his “non-masculine” essence.
NB. This is a very delicate moment. Appearance of the female algorithm instead of the male one is associated with the person’s nature, which is the ultimate cause of their actions. Every person with the need is the master of their world (their idea of the world). This can not be changed, it’s human nature. In this case, it means that no matter what infantile roles the homophobe plays, he will see himself as the master (with the need) of everything happening in the world, even if he has to go insane for that. By making realization of the “male” algorithm of the father control impossible, the homophobe with the need will have to deploy a different control algorithm. By the way, the “female” algorithm is not the only alternative in this case. One the missions of the church is providing the person with an effective algorithm to control everything that’s happening in their world, even under condition of their total obedience and social and legal insignificance.
Demonization of the father’s image facilitates the appearance in the homophobe’s consciousness of a potential source of homosexual arousal not only through the “female” battle algorithm. The same position of the “inevitably defeated in a “man-to-man” confrontation with the father” actualizes the future homophobe’s emphasized idea of his aprioristic social exceptionalism. One of the many functions of this emphasis is stabilization of the emotion in connection with the ultimate causation under conditions of a total failure. By the moment the father “demonization” begins, the young man has already emphasized his idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism. And its actualization happens with “demonization” start: this idea rises to the level of at least the nearest subconsciousness, if not to the consciousness.
It’s possible that the power of “demonization” is directly proportional to the power of emphasis on personal aprioristic social exceptionalism: the more potential homophobe is convinced of his exceptionalism, the more “demonic” father’s image he can let himself create. I discussed the mechanism of influence of the emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism on the appearance of a potential source of homosexual arousal in the consciousness above.
Renunciation by the potential homophobe of the masculine component of his image is defined by operation of three factors: impossibility of “man-to-man” confrontation with the father, blocking mother’s sexual offer, and desire to be some kind of a priori exceptional social unit. Such pressure makes renunciation foreseeable, if not predetermined.
Voluntary renunciation of the masculine component with simultaneous appearance of the “female” father fighting algorithm in subconsciousness prepares the ground for appearance of doubts regarding personal sexual “normalcy” in the potential homophobe’s mind. Potential source of homosexual impulse develops not from doubts, but from inability to disprove them. Here lies a real pitfall for the potential homophobe.
The necessity of the father’s negative image and its artificiality is an important aspect for understanding the connection between this image and the potential source of homosexual impulse.
As I have said above, the image of “Obedient...” and the negative image of the father are necessary to the homophobe, that’s why he artificially cultivates these constructs. It’s safe say that the play “Enchanted Prince and the Beast” with the homophobe in the lead role should run permanently and under any conditions. The role of “obedient” certainly burdens the homophobe, but without it he’s risking to face a more serious problem. The role of “obedient” for the homophobe is like armor for the knight: it’s heavy and it hurts, and the knight must relieve himself inside it, but without it he will die. As I’ve said before, as long as the father plays the “beast” role in “Enchanted Prince and the Beast”, the role of “obedient” not only doesn’t hurt the homophobe’s ego, but even brings him hidden dividends.
NB. I need to make a very important emphasis here: both components of the “Obedient to the father’s will a priori exceptional child” image are inseparable. Obedience is always accompanied by feeling personal aprioristic social exceptionalism. The second part equalizes the first one by removing frustration from obeying the father. When the father’s place is taken by some “social father” (teacher, manager, commanding officer, “cell master”, policeman, doctor, state or other male figures associated with the father) in the super-ego structure, the situation becomes more complicated.
Together with the mother, the father initially takes a place of “menial” in the child’s mentality, that’s why the role of “Obedient...” doesn’t really degrade the potential homophobe and therefore, doesn’t require special demonstration of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism. Apart from everything else, parental pride is not really hurt by humiliation radiating from their obedient offspring in the image of an “a priori exceptional social creature”. The parents often delegate the role of an “a priori exceptional...” to their child unconsciously (and sometimes even consciously). A “social father” is a different story. He doesn’t intend to serve his “son” and reacts way more nervously to aprioristic domination of the latter over him.
A serious problem leading to aggravation of homosexual fears appears after the homophobe exits the “parental bubble” environment and enters the “dominant confrontation” environment, when the father’s place as a “beast” might be artificially replaced by an actually sick person with pathological thirst for power. The key word here is “might”. Homosexual fears aggravate when only a possibility of replacing the father this way at the super-ego place appears in the imagination.
The problem in question is most pronounced when the homophobe starts to imagine being in a jail cell or in some other confined space, where there is a hypothetical possibility of being raped at the order of some “master”. When getting into such situation, both components of the “Obedient to the father’s will a priori exceptional child” start to act against the homophobe. Obedience may be deemed by the “father” a demonstration of homosexual nature with corresponding conclusions. And demonstration of personal aprioristic superiority to the “father” could lead to being “brought down” from the pedestal.
The problem becomes completely unsolvable when the young man’s “aprioristic social exceptionalism” is structured by the feeling of personal predominant sexual value, which is exactly the homophobe’s case. The homophobe fears that he will unwillingly handle the unavoidable conflict with the “father” according to the “female” scenario, and the consequences will be immediate. In a word, no matter how the homophobe thinks through the conflict with the “father” in confined space, his every thought results in forced homosexual life. And additionally, the mother’s voice says from subconsciousness: “Please return from this hell in one piece!”. As I have stated above, it’s not that easy for the homophobe to set himself against gay people; that is why forced status of a gay is not perceived by him as an absolute evil, which nourishes his homosexual fears.
Father “demonization” and appearance in the homophobe’s conscious of a potential source of homosexual arousal are also connected through the image of “ideal father”.
The idea of possibility of “ideal parents” existence appears in the person’s mentality as a result of opposition to their real parents. The reason of this opposition is the need to legitimate a neurotic image. The idea of possibility of “ideal father” existence appears as a possibility to legitimate the emphasis on personal aprioristic social exceptionalism.
As I’ve said multiple times, any neurotic image is “put” on the emphasized idea of personal aprioristic social exceptionalism. Essentially, this emphasis is not viable: for the purpose of positively foreseeable existence in a world, to which the person is opposed as an exceptional one, there must be some caring source of “superior” nature, i.e. of the same nature with the “a priori exceptional” person. Otherwise, the person inevitably dies in the a priori strange and incomprehensible world.
The premise of possibility of “ideal parents” existence can be easily found in any neurotic, that is, essentially, in any person. This can be a “godhead”, a “Father the Tsar” or a “motherland”; at this point we need to remember various “gurus” and those who guarantee human rights in exchange of obedience and politeness, and other “higher forces”. This premise lies at the heart of “illegitimate infant” and “changeling” delusions. The popularity of this delusion is proved by multiple TV shows, where he/she finally finds his/her parents after long ordeals, and these parents, of course, turn out to be honorable and wealthy.
It should be noted that the idea of an “ideal parent” is sometimes projected to the biological parent figure. In this case, we face a compulsive idealization of the parent figure. The compulsiveness of this idealization is noticeable during psychoanalysis: when the analysand realizes that the psychoanalyst doesn’t share their admiration of the unique (genius... divine) father (mother), their resistance skyrockets. This version of the “ideal parent” idea is most stable when some far ancestor is the object of projection. Lack of information is always beneficial for idealization, because critique is having a hard time.
The premise of possibility of “ideal parent” existence makes the emphasis on personal aprioristic social exceptionalism more critical. A neurotic always has the need to resolve inconsistencies between the obviousness of their potential genius and the absence of any sane product of this potential. This inconsistency receives a hardly critiqued resolution in the form of premise of the possibility of other conditions of formation and development of this potential. “If only I had a different father”, - repeats the “unique one” deliriously.
There is at least one more factor conditioning the appearance of the “ideal father” idea in the homophobe’s mind. I’m referring to the same need to “demonize” the biological father figure. Development of the negative father image, just like any other relative construct, requires a background. Development of a relative construct is technically impossible without the background. A bad father is bad only in comparison to some good father; otherwise he can be quite okay, even he has a drinking problem and talks nonsense sometimes. Compared to the ideal father, any real father, i.e. any father with any flaws seems a “freak” or a “jerk”. The homophobe dreams of ideal father and envies his peers who “got lucky” not because he wants to meet this perfect father and fall into his embrace. He is very cautious about the possibility of such meeting. The main purpose of these dreams called “My real father, please find me, I’ve been looking for you for so long!” is to despise and hate his biological father.
Speaking of the influence of the homophobe’s dream of “ideal father” on appearance of potential source of homosexual arousal, it’s appropriate to mention the saying “You get what you fought for” again. In the homophobe’s dreams, relations with “ideal father”, as an antithesis to relations with the biological father, are totally conflict free and without any ambitions. In the homophobe’s mind, his “ideal father” rather serves than controls him. And it turns out that both passive and active homosexual fantasies are perfectly overlaid with this ideal image.
In the passive homosexual position in relation to the “ideal father”, the homophobe loses the element of humiliation. When applied to the “ideal father”, “obedience” from the image of “Obedient to the father’s will a priori exceptional child” easily acquires a homosexual extension, which the homophobe can’t resist, since neither argument against it works. Active homosexual fantasies can also be easily projected to the image of a non-confrontational father serving his son.
Additionally, there is another factor increasing sexual attractiveness of “ideal father” image for the homophobe. Since the “ideal father” closely resembles the mother, it takes the place of allowed incestuous object in the homophobe’s mentality. Therefore, incestuous libido frees exactly through the fantasies of sex with “ideal father”.
Fourth factor. Blocking the natural channel of libido realization.
One of the main reasons of appearance of the thoughts of latent homosexuality in the person’s consciousness is blocking by them of the natural channel of libido realization. The logic here is quite clear: if the natural channel of libido realization is blocked, then appears the need of alternative channels. Unsublimated libido needs to be realized somehow. A homosexual channel is one of these alternatives, which is the most preferable for the homophobe, as I will show below.
In this case, a “natural channel” means sexual relations based on psychophysiological procreation mechanism. Obviously, such relations can take place only between a man and a woman of reproductive age. In this case, the mechanism of sexual arousal and sexual satisfaction is preset by the nature - it’s a subcortical reflex, no inventions required, everything works on its own. Outside the procreation mechanism, sexuality becomes excessive, i.e. conditioned by the sick condition of mentality. The more sexuality deviates from reproduction scheme, the more excessive it is and the stronger “medicine” designed to cure some mental problem it becomes.
NB. I need to make the following emphasis here: speaking of sex as a medicine, I am not saying that having sex is bad. Just like any other medicine, sex can be bad, if one feels less comfortable using it than without it. Bad sex is the one that forms artifacts that are destructive for its participants.
The mental problem that makes the homophobe block the natural channel of libido realization is the Oedipus complex, which we’ve learned about already. By “marrying” the mother, the child solves the problem of competition with the father and enjoys having the mother back for some time, - until the puberty period; but when the puberty hits, the child faces sudden problems. A woman’s place becomes taken by the mother figure, and the young man’s libido that starts to produce excessively, at first is directed at the mother figure. The mother becomes a sexual object, and the young man with the need acquires incestuous experience. In most cases, this experience consists in feeling the possibility of incest. Although sometimes the young man can plunge into incestuous fantasies.
The special feature of homophobic infantilism is the homophobe’s obsession with sexual relations with the mother, which I’ve written about above. We can’t say that the homophobe consciously longs for incest, but he doesn’t exactly want to let go of the possibility of incest. The more correct way to put it would be to say that the homophobe plays with the possibility of incest, he tries it on.
The homophobe is not drawn by sex itself, - he doesn’t want to have sex with his mother at all. I discussed the factors making incest tempting for a neurotic in the corresponding article. Here I would like to focus only on two factors making the possibility of incest tempting for a homophobe. Both of these factors reflect a distinctive feature of homophobic infantilism.
The first factor is restoration of emotional connection with the mother. The second factor is the need to compensate the dependency in relation to the father. This factor is particularly distinct in the homophobe due to the father figure “demonization”. The possibility of incest suddenly becomes the possibility of effective resistance to the “demonized” image of the father. “Yes, I’m afraid of you and that’s why I obey you, but you are at my mercy, because I can steal your woman at any moment and laugh at your man powerlessness”, - this is an approximate text that helps the homophobe handle his nullity in relation to the power of “demonized” father.
The homophobe’s obsession with incest doesn’t let him form a permissible heterosexual object. Even an infantile “blonde” doing all she can to set herself apart from the “mother” image seems a mother to the homophobe, which leads to the thought of being killed by the furious father. Sex with a woman for the homophobe is like throwing himself under a bus, - sexual vigor is the last thing on his mind.
As a result of the homophobe’s obsession with incest, his libido gets locked: no heterosexual object can relieve him of the fear of sex and become resolved. But a homosexual object can do the trick, - that’s why locked libido dashes toward homosexual object. The homophobe’s homosexual sex vigor turns out to be just fine, which, of course, is completely terrifying for him.
Blocking the natural channel of libido realization makes the homophobe highly insecure during communication with the opposite sex, which requires a certain evaluation from him. He has to somehow explain his insecurity, restraint and often fear of talking to women. Weak heterosexual arousal on the one hand, and strong homosexual one on the other hand pose unpleasant questions for him. Hard questions! It seems to him that possible latent homosexuality explains all his troubles.
3. Factors preventing the person from fighting their homosexual fears.
- Cautious attitude of others. The fear of discovering latent homosexual nature is pretty often heated by specific public attitude. Observing the person’s insecurity in building sexual relations with the opposite sex, an assumption of their latent homosexuality is the first thing that comes to mind of the person’s friends, acquaintances and relatives. Such assumption particularly often comes to minds of the girls observing sexual insecurity of the homophobe in all its aspects and details, including physiological ones.
These assumptions and suspicions of the others, just like compassion and sympathy, make the homophobe’s life significantly harder. Generally speaking, homophobes (especially men) are very worrywart people; they always think they are not masculine enough or are too feminine. And of course, it seems to them that everybody is watching their continuous battle with their natural “femininity” and assessing it correspondingly. It is bad enough that the homophobe tries to chase away the thought of having gay nature, without the others being eager to remind them that their suspicions are not that absurd.
- Consistency of homosexual images. The person’s inability to effectively resist the rush of homosexual images is one of the factors that make the assumption of having latent homosexual nature more stable.
The homophobe is scared not so much by homosexual images attacking them time after time God knows from where, as their consistent and spontaneous nature. Consistency and spontaneity of appearance of inappropriate mental material is the general self-identification problem of a neurotic in general and a homophobe in particular. The reason is correlation with the idea of personal nature. This logic suggests that everything appearing in one’s head spontaneously and not disappearing independently is the nature's doing, and everything that requires continuous personal efforts for existence is perceived as artificial and unnatural.
Of course, this logic is inaccurate. It would be more logical to consider the cause leading the person to fight destructive feelings as manifestation of personal nature, and not the source of destructive feelings. Why does the person have to think that inappropriate for them feeling is their nature, even if it’s an orgasm after which they don’t want to live anymore.
Certainly, there is some logic in appearance of homosexual images in one’s mind, and this article is dedicated to this logic. If the person can not get rid of homosexual images, then there is something wrong with their mentality and it requires some treatment. This is perhaps the only conclusion that the person must make after facing the problem of their latent homosexual predisposition. Powerlessness experienced by the person due to the rush of homosexual images is nothing but the result of their wrong actions. This kind of powerlessness is experienced by anyone who got sick and doesn’t know what to do.
4. Cause of homosexual fears
The cause of homosexual fears is the homophobe himself. There are no other reasons in the world but the homophobe himself. All factors mentioned above only facilitate the appearance of potential source of homosexual arousal in the homophobe’s consciousness, but he is the one letting himself to be afraid of becoming gay.
What is essentially the homophobe’s fear of becoming gay? The fear of becoming gay is the fear of the personal choice, - this choice can not be made without the homophobe’s decision. Who can force the homophobe to make the decision to become gay, but he himself? No one! So what is so scary then? The answer seems obvious. And this answer even has convincing grounds.
As I have said above, homophobia is a schizoid type disease, and a distinctive feature of all schizoids is the tendency to subject their sensibility to the intellect. Normally, the sensual sphere dominates over the intellectual one: it guides the person in social space, sets priorities and defines the target, while the intellect only solves the tasks posed by feelings. For schizoids, it’s vice versa. “Feelings should be smart”, “Feelings should be right”, “Feelings should obey the intellect” - these are the slogans, under which a schizoid moves towards schizophrenia. Inadequacy of superiority of the intellect over sensibility is clearly visible through the example of homosexual fears.
Intellect is what leads the person to homosexual fears: analyzing the structure of personal sexuality, the homophobe is forced to acknowledge that he is gay. Of course, he doesn’t want to, and his feelings are against it, but the conclusion suggests itself. The intellect tells the homophobe that he is gay and that he has to admit it. The homophobe is terrified about this conclusion, but the intellect is relentless: “Everything points to you being gay. Admit it, be a man finally!”. The homophobe could rely on his aesthetic non-acceptance of homosexuality, but his feelings are suppressed by the intellect and therefore, are mummified, so he wouldn’t be able to study his sensibility, even if he wanted to. The problem is that the homophobe doesn’t want to study his sensibility, because it’s humiliating to him. All his life, he consciously (which means purposefully) suppressed his sensibility, thus creating some “English aristocrat” inside. The homophobe doesn’t want to give up the role of an “intellectual”, because it elevates him and makes him “unique”, and he will cling to his intellectualizing to the last.
In this light, it’s clear why the homophobe is afraid of himself. Some time ago he made a decision about intellectual domination and can’t give it up even when the instinct of self-preservation screams of danger. Giving up superiority of the intellect means giving up personal “uniqueness”, which is equivalent to death. This is why his situation is terrifying. When the intellect had led the homophobe to the necessity to choose a homosexual life (i.e. a shameful death), the homophobe in line with himself must make the “right” choice, if he’s not a “trembling creature and I does have the right”.
In light of this discussion, the homophobe’s low spirits due to the prospect of becoming gay seem objectively justified, but everything’s not that simple. Fear is not an absolute state; it’s an approximate reaction that helps the person to see the danger. Fear is not the cause of the person’s actions: as an ultimate cause of actions, the person can act in accordance with their decision regardless of the paralyzing fear. In this case, nothing prevents the homophobe from studying the danger originating from the gay image, and from developing affordable means of fighting, but he gives up the search for the countermeasures in favor of the fear. The motivation for refusal from researching his homosexual impulses is very specific: “What if I experience a homosexual orgasm? Then I would certainly have to become gay”, - says the homophobe. A homosexual orgasm is seen by the homophobe as a proof for the intellect, which he would have to obey.
But this vicious circle is not vicious. Psychoanalysis clearly shows that homophobia, just like any other phobia, is artificially cultivated by an infantile neurotic. All phobias have the same purpose: to repress incestuous impulses. Incestuous arousal is a real danger to the homophobe, while homosexual arousal is something like a good horror movie, - very scary but in general, absolutely safe. It’s a different matter that the homophobe doesn’t know how to stop watching this “scary movie”, and panics.
During psychoanalysis, the repression function lying on the homosexual fears is clearly visible: it appears in the form of specific resistance during the analysis. The homophobe has a few ways of analysis blocking in his resistance magazine, and one of them is the fear of discovering conclusive evidence of personal homosexual predisposition. As soon as the analysand faces the possibility of incestuous extension of his relations with women, he immediately starts to block the analysis. He doesn’t always deploy the fear of homosexuality. Sometimes he sinks into infantilism; sometimes he tries to provoke aggression in the analyst; sometimes he comes up with something new, - there are so many ways to block the analysis. But when nothing works and the psychoanalysis must be blocked, the homophobe issues a problem called “I’m afraid of becoming gay”.
When the psychoanalysis gathers speed and most of analysand’s resistances become ineffective, we can observe a distinct pattern of the topic “I’m afraid of becoming gay” appearance. This topic always emerges after the analysand taps into unconscious incestuous arousal. This often happens within one session, which is particularly indicative. For instance, the analysand is telling about his strange heterosexual experience and suddenly realizes that he’s been communicating with the girl like with the mother. As soon as he realizes this, he changes the topic right away and declares the issue “I’m afraid of becoming gay”. There are other indicative cases.
For instance, one of my analysands told me at the session that he suddenly became extremely aroused during sex with his wife, and for some reason became afraid that he might be gay. One would think: how is it possible to find homosexual motives in one’s mind during the strongest heterosexual arousal? It turned out that during the sex, he suddenly associated his wife with his mother, because of which he got over-aroused and had the strongest orgasm. Having gotten scared of the prospect of being captured by incestuous arousal, the analysand activated his most effective protection mechanism. The delicacy of this situation lies in the fact that up until the moment of this episode, the analysand had been having a successful heterosexual experience for over three years and never thought of his homosexual fears... and suddenly, out from nowhere - “I’m afraid I’m gay”. Another indicative fact is that after the analysand had realized that he had hidden from the problem of incestuous excitement behind the problem of latent homosexuality, the latter had disappeared from the analysis again.
5. Treatment of homosexual fears
There is nothing optimistic that I could say here. Only the psychoanalysis is dealing with treatment of homosexual fears, or, to be exact, a new branch of classic psychoanalysis, the only representative of which is me.
The text of this article organically derives from a new psychoanalytical theory, which can be found in the corresponding website section. In fact, I was the one to introduce the term “homosexual fears” (it first appeared back in 2003 in the original version of “Homosexual Fears” published by me on the old website (psy-7.narod.ru)), and I am the only one to elaborate on this issue. No one else in the world works with this complicated issue, and no one can. The old Freudian psychoanalytic theory is too primitive for this.
The phenomenon of homosexual fears discovered by me is called “latent homosexuality” in old psychoanalytic theory. This concept excludes the issue of homosexual fears: psychoanalysts, psychoanalytic psychotherapists and psychiatrists advocating Freudian theory can only offer the homophobe to help them accept their “homosexual nature”. Nothing else derives from the Freudian theory, and no one has ever spoken on this issue besides Freud and myself.
Of course, there’s a way out of this situation. Every person can create their own “psychoanalytic laboratory”, where they could meet their delusional ideas when possible. This type of meeting is essentially the only chance to solve one’s mental problems without any side effects.
“Psychoanalytic laboratory” is a space arranged by the person in their imagination, where they are the researcher of their destructive ideas of themselves. In this “psychoanalytic laboratory”, the person can see themselves as a gay, saint, killer, rapist, or anyone else. Any destructive idea forced upon the person by their mentality loses its destructive potential after getting inside the space for psychoanalytic research. This concerns not only homosexual images and fantasies. Before showering your woman with angry accusations of the miserable state of your ego and finances, let it all out in your “psychoanalytic laboratory”. It might turn out that this speech is not addressed to her, and paradoxically, she might be the only support for your ego and finances.