Studies Say 'Gaydar' Is Real

novice_btm

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Posts
9,891
Media
18
Likes
4,576
Points
358
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
...Let's ring it up to what it really is: "specified empathy". An ability to read signals from people about their inner natures...
Well, I'd agree with that. I mean, I get approached by too many people that have NO information about me, other than a quick glance.

Recently, I was working at this event, as a rep for a wine company. I see this guy and his wife. I make split second eye contact, from across a room, as I'm generally scanning the crowd. They, led by him, skip past a few other exhibits, and he stops in front of me. He asks me a few questions about the wines, and I answer. He starts to ask another, but when his wife turns away for a second, he launches into, "You know, we don't swing, but I think with you, I mi... uh, oh, Hi Honey. Have you tried this one? We were just talking about how it's..." Unsolicited, unprovoked, he just popped out with the beginnings of a come-on. Now, granted, he was trashed, but still, from the three non-sexual, product informational phrases we exchanged, he drew the conclusion that I might be receptive to that.
 
2

2322

Guest
An interesting point, I just can't bring myself to agree with it. I don't think Ogg invited Fug or Fag over for dinner and courting and romance of his daughter. Usually, in the animal kingdom, a male "advertises" in some way and females respond. There's no romance.

If a male (in nature) is advertising to females an interest in mating, nobody needs Gaydar. I'm just not buying it as an evolutionary tool.

Usually, yes. Humans though are different. I have heard a theory that romance developed parallel to erotic pleasure and that the root of both developed when humans began walking upright and lost the os penis. For human males to act on sexual arousal, they would need more than an autonomic response to sensory displays or pheromones to achieve erection and penetration. There are debates that romance also helped to maintain pair bondings particularly until a child had reached some measure of independence. I have even heard it speculated that the so-called, "seven year itch," may be a remnant of an instinctive urge for males to leave the romantic pair bond and move on. A child of seven is minimally independent and thus, much less of a burden on a mother than a younger child or infant. Humans too are also unique in higher mammals in that the females are fecund at all times (which is why they always have prominent breasts). Romantic love may be the very glue required to assist the species as a whole to survive and particlarly so during the early years of childhood when the physical and nutritional demands made on a mother by an infant or young child could mean that both would stand less chance of survival without a male bonded to them both in some way.

There is also theory that when humans developed foresight, self-awareness, and complex memory recall, that we quickly adapted our mating times to be whenever we thought was best. Human children require an extraordinary amount of time and care to rear to independence and they are also very helpless for an equally extraordinary time compared to other animals of any other species. When humans gained intelligence, we very quickly gained reproductive control. That this occurred points to the long and complex social interdependence of humans. It takes into account our unique ability to forecast events that may effect our survival and consciously change our reproductive behavior as a result*.

Bisexuality in higher mammals appears to be strictly limited to social species and humans are an extremely social species thus I expect that bisexuality must somehow serve the survival of social species. This theory is shared by some animal behaviorists who believe that male-to-male sexual contact lessens male competition and fosters cooperation within the group, thus leading to a better chance of survival for all group members. In species without bisexual bonding, males are characteristically more apt to fight each other for dominance (and mating rights) or territory to the point of serious injury or death. Social species need numbers and cooperation to survive. Males frequently killing each other within the same social group harms not only the potential genetic pool but group chances for survival.

A very interesting example that this may be the case is demonstrated by the female hyena. Female hyenas have exceptional levels of testosterone. They are larger and more aggressive than males of the species and even have a pseudopenis. In hyenas, a very social species, it is the females who primarily engage in bisexual behaviors.

I'm going out on a limb here and thinking that if humans started at some point in the distant past, just as all the other animals, that we would have the same tendency to bisexuality as the other higher social mammals with dominant males but, because we later developed a unique ability to control our time of reproduction, and developed romantic love, that homosexuality as we understand it, developed into what it is today. Our social rituals eventually grew away from the need for group males to bond sexually in order to keep peace within the tribe, but the (genetic?) desire to do so didn't fall away because the social imperative to reproduce regardless of sexual attraction didn't hinder reproduction. A genetic trait will stay around either because a) it helps reproduction and/or survival, or b) because it doesn't hinder reproduction or survival.
 
2

2322

Guest
PART 2

Our exceptionally heavy investment in child bearing, rearing, and the exceptional needs of human children made the institution of pair bonding, or marriage, so important that the biseuxal tendencies of males was seen as a threat. If a man was being sexually gratified by other men, he might delay reproducing or even prefer homosexual sex to heterosexual and thus never reproduce. Human pair bonding, mating, and framily raising rituals are very time and resource consuming and prior to modern medicine, early death was much more common than it is now. Most societies, because again of the human ability to forecast potential threats, regarded the establishment of a reproductive pair to be imperative and thus fostered its creation at the earliest opportunity; frequently right at or even just before puberty.

Other societies however, recognized male bisexual bonding as an asset to their societies and encouraged it. The most widely known example is that of ancient Greece. The classical Greeks tended to marry relatively late and it was expected that young men would seek out pubertal males to engage in sexual activities. In many ways, this would be a young man's introduction to society. Boys debuted, as it were, and the more handsome boys developed quite a following of young men who sought them out, competing with each other by giving the boys gifts, helped them with their fortunes, or apprentice them in various disciplines. When the boy reach late puberty the sexual aspect of the relationship was expected to end, but the friendships frequently lasted lifetimes. In all cases, men were expected to marry by the time they were 30 (late marriage a reflection of the prosperity and good health of developed civilizations). Unlike Athens, Sparta was heavily regimented in this regard. Boys left home at age 7 to join a barracks where homosexual contact was encouraged; the theory being that a man would fight harder for his lovers than for mere friends. The policy also allowed the Spartan elders, who were frequently off on campaigns, to keep younger males out of their homes and thus lessen the chances of infidelity. A Spartan could not marry until 31. Until then, his sexual life consisted of other men and professional prostitutes.

Other societies recognized homosexuals as man/woman, where a man would take on the societal role, dressing, acting and treated as a woman, frequently for widowers who had already reproduced. Still other societies created roles for homosexuals that put them in close social contact with women as women went about their daily lives (hair dressers, dress makers, interior decorators, household stewards) while men were out of the house. Some societies expected boys of the ages between puberty and maturity to engage in sexual play and found it a good outlet for their sexual frustrations as it prevented unwed girls from becoming pregnant. The Samba of Papua today still segregate men from women in separate quarters and boys nearing puberty are expected to fellate other men to ejaculation thus taking in the strength of the men they are fellating. The semen is also thought to stimulate the production of semen in the young boys themselves. Once again, this behavior is both time and situation limited. Marriage and reproduction is still the norm at maturity.

Left to late western social constructs that allow homosexuals not to reproduce, that the trait would stand a chance of dying out completely as humans with the trait are no longer as pressured to reproduce as they once were and thus fewer offspring would carry on the trait. Yet this is not what's happening. Homosexuals are still reproducing as much as they ever have and now the social construct of medicine has provided homosexuals with a means of reproducing without sexual intercourse. We have surrogacy, gay/lesbian parenting partnerships, and sperm banks to take the place of the institution of pair bonding via marriage. We are thus free to engage in our romantic and sexual preferences while still fulfilling the ages old imperative to reproduce. It is my opinion that the more homosexuals reproduce, the more socially acceptable they will become.

I am also deeply curious about the role of homosexuals across many different societies. Very often they seem to be the pacifiers, the peacemakers, the sex that bridges the gap between the sexes and acts as a pacifier of intermale aggression. Homosexuals DO seem to be more attuned to nuance, aesthetic, and emotion. I highly suspect that in those earliest societies like those of my two exemplars, Ogg and Una, that gay men helped calm aggressions, settle disputes, or otherwise contributed something necessary to the bonding of the community.

Ogg and Una have had a spat and Ogg is sleeping in the dinohouse. Ogg comes to work grumpy and upset making all the other men tense. Ogg can't concentrate on hunting mastodon and since he's the leader, the other men have to do what he says. They're unhappy too. Fag notices Ogg is upset and speaks to Ogg about his emotions and what has happened. Maybe he even offers to give Ogg a blowjob or an ass to fuck to relieve his sexual tensions. After work Fag goes to talk to Una. Ogg and the rest of the tribe see Fag and Una talking away and do not disturb them. Ogg and the tribe know Fag will not try anything with Una and Una feels Fag is a good listener. She tells Fag all about her argument with Ogg over whether to decorate Ogg's cave in sabre tooth tiger or bear skin. Fag understands Una and what she is trying to say to Ogg. After many hours of talking, Fag returns to Ogg and offers to take him over to Grob's Fermented Honey Hut for a drink. There he explains Una's problem in a way that Ogg can understand much better than by simply listening to Una's apparently illogical ravings. Fag suggests that Ogg allow Una to decorate the cave in tiger skin but that Una will agree to allow Ogg to keep his personal recess decorated in bear skin as it always has. After a few gourds of fermented honey, Ogg lopes home to Una and all is well.

Fag too helps with other clan problems. Fag (an Omega male) is good with children and he can be trusted to look after them when the clan are all out together gathering berries at the dangerous edge of their territory where men have to keep watch over the women. Two young males, Guh and Duh got into a fight where they nearly killed each other and each male has friends who side with him. This could be disasterous for the clan, but Fag steps in and mediates between the two groups, each group knowing that Fag is not a threat to them because he is friendly with members of each group.

I suspect humanity owes a great deal to Fag and other homosexuals like him.

*As a tangent, it has also been noted that the other higher mammal most dependent on society for surival is the dog. It may not be coincidence that humans and dogs have complemented each other since the dawn of time.
 

killerb

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Posts
2,090
Media
3
Likes
212
Points
383
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
There was a pretty non-scientific experiment done on one of the talk shows a while back...may have been Oprah or Tyra or someone...

They paraded a group of guys onstage & the audience had to guess whether each guy was straight or gay...

if I remember correctly, they guessed correctly most of the time...there were only one or two that were missed...

Personally, if there is such a thing as gaydar, mine is definitely faulty! I've been hit on by guys, but totally didn't get it until later...I thought they were just being friendly...:rolleyes:
 

B_Jaunet

Just Browsing
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Posts
89
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
I think this dude Jason Els has nailed it.

Take that all you one-liners! :biggrin1: Rock on J E. I hear ya!

We can't have people being intuitive about things sexual or all our hidden secrets may be discovered now can we? :rolleyes:
 

Irish

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 12, 2005
Posts
536
Media
187
Likes
4,423
Points
598
Age
39
Location
Johns Island (South Carolina, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
An excellent set of posts, Jason. I've had company all weekend so I just now got a chance to get back online and read things, but definitely some interesting things to think about.

I'm not sure how I feel about sexual orientation being genetically determined - as far as I know there hasn't been any evidence to suggest it yet - but the social roles all make a lot of sense and certainly goes a long way to explaining why the trait has persisted so long without being inherently directly related to successful breeding.
 

Notaguru2

Experimental Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Posts
1,519
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
123
Location
Charleston, SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I think the "Gaydar" works best within straight folks. I, being straight, seem to detect it quite well - I'm not purposely trying to analyze people.. but it happens.

On the otherhand, a gay friend of mine thinks every guy he lays his eyes on is gay. Its quite funny actually. I'm not sure if he just "wishes" they were gay or if he really thinks it =)
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,402
Media
0
Likes
305
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
The thread interests me and the people commenting interest me and I'm way too tired to actually pay attention so I'm just earmarking it to read later. I'm not being facetious. If there's a better way than this (ie: by writing), I'm not up on it, but I'm an idiot.
 
Last edited:

dong-in-khakis

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Posts
1,646
Media
0
Likes
513
Points
208
Location
southern USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I still don't quite understand why some people put so damn much emphasis on "gaydar" and such things. Who gives a f**k.. Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time and always will be as long as this world exists. Who really cares is someone claims to have such an "honorable" gift (like one man's wife on here claimed to) to be able to tell if someone is gay.

You wanna know the truth..? Many of our best friends, brothers, sisters, even mothers and fathers are at least some percentage homosexual, and will NEVER live to tell it.

No matter what we say, how we label ourselves, there is a percentage of gay in almost everyone. I'm sure there are a few completely straights out there, but I fear not many.. completely straight that is.

I'm totally convinced of this, and not just because I'm predominantly gay. As many people in chat rooms have experienced, there are literally hundreds and thousands that fill chat rooms exploring their homosexual appetites. Most involved in chat room experiences know this to be true. I'm willing to bet that even some totally closeted bi's and gays outwardly bash homosexuality.

This is a bisexual and homosexual world we live in. I think the reason God hasn't pronounced judgement on the world like he did in Sodom and Gomorrah is probably because 95 percent of the population of the world is to some extent gay.

I'm sure there will be differing opinions and reactions to this post. I mean no offense to anyone, it's just how I feel.
 

marleyisalegend

Loved Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
6,126
Media
1
Likes
621
Points
333
Age
38
Location
charlotte
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Gaydar DEFINITELY works in some cases (the guy with the gelled up hair with his hands on his waist standing like Daphney from Scooby Doo talking like Madea) but what's the purpose? Why do we need to identify gay people? So we know who to stay away from? As long as it's in fun I don't care but I'm sure some people use it so they know who to treat like a plague.

Gaydar doesn't even serve gay people cuz when we get it wrong, the consequences can be dire. The only thing it's good for is when you're at the mall pickin' 'em out "He isn, she isn't, he DEFINITELY is, she DEFINITELY is, he's not, she's not," etc...