I've been watching the TV series "Lie To Me" and in one episode (Ep.110 "Better Half") the main character, Dr. Cal Lightman, sites a study in which gay men were able to be detected accurately (by men and women) just using facial identifiers. Since I was also aware that the creators of the show strive for accuracy in the series, I did some digging and found the study that was mentioned. It is, indeed, true. "Gay Face" - Kinsey Institute. So, gaydar is real after all! ~String
I have no gaydar what so ever. Village People, Freddy Mercury, Little Richard, Richard Simmons, not a clue. People have to tell me these things.
LOL, no, I just never cared enough to try and guess. My best friend is gay and I forget all the time. I continually point out cute guys to her (she's single) and she gives me this look :bugeye: She has given me pointers though. I'm picking up on hand gestures.
Freddy Mercury's moustache was a dead giveaway, I do believe! What a gay moustache!!! WITH MOUSTACHE Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! WITHOUT MOUSTACHE (EVEN MORE GAY!!!) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've heard of this study. I wonder how many of the "gay" people were identified correctly the most, as well as which ones were identified the least, as well as which straight people were misidentified (or were they correctly identifiedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!?). That would be vital information, I feel positive. It might help identify the "type" of homosexuality of the person. If a person is much more correctly identified facially as homosexual than another who is but is not identified as often, that might suggest that one of them is more biologically predisposed than the other. Some people claim to have been homosexual from childhood. Others don't identify with it until adolescence or later. And some people are half and half (bisexual). Studies like this have one major fault in that they don't fully examine gray areas like that, which could really shed a lot of light on human sexual preference in general and what causes or influences it. Interesting: they did a study on whether attractiveness of a CEO determines success for a company!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
http://www.tuftsdaily.com/gay-and-straight-ph-d-student-learns-rules-1.744926 At that link, there is this picture which I believe is of Rule himself. All I can say is WHAT A HOTTY!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, on some level, I guess I must. But generally, the straight people I know don't know until I tell them (I recently hired a new office administrator [who has lots of gay friends, apparently] for my location, and she was totally stunned when I started a story with, "My boyfriend..." She didn't believe me and thought I was joking). Gay people--being a bit more in tune to this issue--generally can tell I'm gay pretty quickly. Just as well, I think I've got pretty good gaydar and can spot a homo 100 yards. ~String
You are fairly masculine, and attractive, but I don't think I would automatically identify you as homosexual. I think a general rule I follow personally, is that if I find a guy really attractive, I'm either going to assume he also likes guys, or subconsciously wish he did!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Interesting. I also watch that show and was intrigued by that statement about "gayface" but didn't bother to look it up. A gay friend of mine told me about about how some male homosexuals are "pitchers" and others are "catchers". With the "catchers" being (usually) more effeminate than the "pitchers". He even looked at a picture of the village people and said, "That guys a pitcher, that guy's a catcher, that guy may go both ways, etc." So, what I wonder is if the catchers, being more effeminate, are easier to spot than the pitchers? And do male homosexuals use some version of this to make sure they hit on the right person? I mean, not only must you spot the homosexual, but you must spot the one that's compatible with your particular preference.
I view the whole top and bottom thing in a relationship the same as a hetero relationship. Sexual relationships are always about give and take. If you love someone and you really don't like receiving anal, you learn to do it if your partner's really into it in exchange for oral sex, etc.
Well, I don't want to doubt your friend's knowledge, but there are FEW real generalities that apply to all, or even most (besides liking "man parts") gay men. Not to put too fine a point on it, I have never "been with" or dated an even remotely effeminate man, in fact, I tend to gravitate towards stocky, built masculine men. If I wanted to date a woman... well... you can see where this is going. As far as the "catcher" and "pitcher" thing goes, that's hardly applicable to anything more than a large plurality. Certainly not even half. Some guys, believe it or not, just like being on the receiving end. You would be surprised (and I suspect, a bit put-off) by the details. ~String
What, pray tell, are these hand gestures? I don't know how reliable that is. It's food for thought, but it assumes much, like those who prefer to be penetrated are mostly effeminate, and that they have a certain appearance. People mistakenly think that all gay males either want to be the penetrator or the penetratee. Some want both. Some (apparently a fair number) want neither. Not everyone enjoys that. Anal sex, is not the be all end all of a relationship between two guys. Sex is not always the focus of a relationship for either gender. And of course, there is the dominant and submissive personality. Being outwardly masculine doesn't mean you're going to be "on top" literally or figuratively (in the psycho-emotional sense). I think maybe it goes deeper than that ( Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). Lastly, homosexual males don't, as far as I know, have any unique physiological characteristic that makes anal intercourse more pleasurable for them than for heterosexual males. It's actually a social stereotype that gay culture perpetuates, but undoubtedly the insistence that someone has to be penetrated while someone has to be the penetrator is of course directly inherited from heterosexuality with its age old model of male dominance and feminine submission. There are those who have argued that mainstream homosexual culture has given far too much importance to that general model, while there are plenty of other satisfying modes of sexual stimulation. The myth that in a homosexual relationship, one plays the "man" and the other the "woman" is quite pervasive. I'm guessing not just heterosexual norms, but historical practices of homosexuality and what it means to be the penetrator vs. the penetrated has had a large influence on that stereotype. It was very often regarded to be an affront to one's masculine nature if one were receptive to anal sex. Being penetrated was either for women, or the effeminate, emasculated male. Why is that people expect such polarity in a romantic or sexual relationship, but not in normal friendships?
Homosexuality is still "the great unknown" for most heterosexuals, especially heterosexual men. For both evolutionary and sociological reasons, the male-masculine identity is the single most important thing to MOST straight men, certainly to almost every pubescent man, and especially "conservative/intolerant" men. Since homosexuality is an unknown to most straight men, and because their only paradigm in relationships is the "male/female" model, it's natural that most straight men will apply this format to gay men as well. In fact, since homosexuality is also new to most homosexual men (as in: most of us have to blaze our own trail, we rarely have the fortune of knowing gay people in our social lives before coming out), we tend to apply the "male/female" model to ourselves as well. Gay men not only have to "come out", but they have to have a second "coming out" a number of years after the first "coming out" (the first being: admitting to themselves and their circle that they are gay, the second being: admitting to themselves that the traditional "male/female" paradigm just doesn't apply). As to your comments about the "penetratee/penetrator", I have to agree. The apprehension about being the receiver comes down to us from ancient times where you weren't considered gay unless you were effeminate and/or were the "bottom". One could, in fact, have sex with boys (generally acceptable with parental permission if they were free) or adult men (especially if they were slaves) without social stigma as long as they were the "top". Moreover, there really isn't any correlation between sexual dominance/repressiveness and being a top or a bottom. Someone might be very sexually dominant and just like being a bottom in bed. Add to that the fact that a man might be socially dominant, but sexually recessive while being a sexual top (physically). Stereotypes just fall by the wayside the more you examine the complexities of any relationship, homo or hetero. ~String
there definitely is a gay voice but thats cultural if being gay is considered as natural and similar an attraction as being straight, why should there be such a thing as a different facial expression for it?
