factbat.com

 In the hotly debated arena of what many have chosen to label “sexual orientation” (generally considered to define homosexuality, regardless of the inferred objectivity), there is yet another label meant to define - or accuse someone of - intolerance. This label is homophobia or “a homophobe”, and while the word may imply that it refers to anyone who has an unreasonable fear of homosexuals, it typically without exception, refers to only heterosexuals.

 What is rather interesting is that while homosexuals are considered by most to be the epitome of open-mindedness, there appear to be none of them who will call into question the veracity of what is a largely baseless label.

 The origins, and true insinuations of the word homophobe, tend to gravitate toward the notion that a person may actually become intolerant their own relative persona, and begs questions such as “can a spider have Arachnophobia?” Which leads to empirical concerns about the terminology of what presents as a largely illogical reasoning.

 When considering the fact that it is implausible, or at least entirely ridiculous, to accuse a person of “Necrophobia” simply because they are afraid of death, or to label somebody a “Pedophilophobe” because they are, quite naturally, inhospitable toward child molesters, one naturally begins to call into question the denial of, or indifference to, an aversion to deviant human behaviors; from self mutilation to bestiality.

 In the search for true clarity on the issue, it becomes increasingly apparent that what society is dealing with is actually an epidemic of “Heterophobia” (an unreasonable fear of heterosexuals), or more precisely “Femmephobia” and "Masculophobia" (unreasonable fear of female, or male, contact). This analogy simply follows the precedent already set by the currently accepted concept which created the word homophobia, and implies that it is homosexuals who have the phobia, of the opposite sex, hence the deviant behavior.

 This diagnosis may initially appear overstated or incomplete. However, it is entirely plausible, especially when considering that many heterosexual males are literally inundated with an inordinate cacophony of nearly indefensible accusations from homosexuals who can find almost anything about heterosexual behavior to be intolerant of them, or merely just offensive to their typically fragile psyche. Often, the only thing the average male needs to do is simply attempt to avoid homosexuals, in order to garner from them the unfounded accusation of being homophobic. Not to be out-done however, many heterosexuals, seeking a bully-pulpit, appear to enjoy berating other hetero males and placing them in this category as well; at times merely to paint themselves as progressive or modern.

 The fact is that the natural order of life on this planet demands that humanity procreate or become extinct. This is undisputed. Therefore, it is an entirely preposterous notion that anyone could ever be considered either a perpetrator or victim of homophobia. Those who abuse or discriminate against homosexuals are just bigots, criminals, or petty jackasses. Moreover, it is certainly unacceptable to castigate responsible hetero individuals for nothing more than a dissenting voice on the subject of homosexuality.

 Conversely, the term heterophobia more aptly applies when attempting to define the propensities, or aversions, of many homosexuals who, often, can be extremely hostile and juvenile toward respectably disagreeable heterosexuals.

 Unfortunately, excessive use and abuse of the term homophobia is likely creating, or simply suggesting, a pre-cognitive, or subconscious, self denial and social displacement among a significant portion of the population. This attack on the sensibilities must then necessarily infringe upon one’s natural proclivity to gravitate toward conscientious relations that are intrinsically definable by predisposed auto-functions or relative predictabilities. Put more simply, society is likely being reprogrammed in such a way that eventually “up” could come to mean “down” and “good” considered “bad”, and so forth; to a degree that many established realms of critical thinking, imperative to survival in a free nation, will become obtruded and dysfunctional.

 To the salient mind this is a dangerous and insidious game to be playing with the nation‘s overall consciousness, especially considering the rate at which information is now mass-produced and delivered via pervasive media to an entire population. Which, unfortunately, gives rise to a bevy of considerations concerning the specific nature of the programming, and the possibility of a marked amount of collusion ensuing within a largely indifferent and authoritarian government vying for increased levels of invasive, and dictatorial powers over a predominantly unwitting public.

 The answer to the question posed in the article is quite obviously “yes, a spider can suffer fom arachnophobia…as long as it is an American spider”.