• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: axe battler | xtcgrrrl | arrall

"Gay-dar" Evidence vs. A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

ageingpartyfiend said:
Happens in other scenarios too.

I can often pick out someone on the autistic spectrum from a glance, on numerous occasions even before they knew they were! Exact same for people with psychosis.

That comes from extensive experience of working with people on the spectrum, and extensive personal experience of people with psychosis
Click to expand...
What are the signs or non-verbal clues that someone is autistic, or psychotic? If this is going off topic feel free to PM me.
 
Outlier said:
Hey @Perforated whats your take? This is an interesting subject.
Click to expand...

Well, my starting point is that sexuality is a spectrum that overlaps another spectrum which is gender/gender expression. A person can be any combination of straight versus homosexual and masculine versus feminine.

Consequently a ‘gaydar’ tuned to effeminancy in males or butchness in females is going to be far from perfect. Because there are straight femme males and straight butch females. And the converse. Plus everything in-between.

I think I pick up gay signals in contexts where sexual atraction is being expressed. Watching two guys having a drink together I think I can often spot if one is sexually attracted to the other - even if the other is unaware. Same if I meet a guy who is interested in me sexually. I think it’s detectable even without obvious moves.

Posture, gaze, hand movements, etc all give it away.

However looking at a guy walking down the street or otherwise minding his own business I think gaydar is BS. You might be able to observe feminine characteristics in his movements or actions but they don’t correlate 1:1 with homosexuality.
 
Perforated said:
However looking at a guy walking down the street or otherwise minding his own business I think gaydar is BS. You might be able to observe feminine characteristics in his movements or actions but they don’t correlate 1:1 with homosexuality.
Click to expand...
This is a big pet-peeve of mine. Socioeconomic stigma appears to play a big part in how singles are viewed in public. I think it's natural for people to single out a lone person in public, but I think the morals surrounding such are often a mix. Though I know to say so is highly controversial, I find that there are those who actively look for lonely people and this honestly makes me sick. There's nothing more unusual and/or antisocial than picking on a lone individual out of thousands of people in one city and passively or discreetly studying that person's body language. Doing so doesn't guarantee that said bully will learn anything that isn't totally arbitrary because these are often isolated situations.
 
iridescentblack said:
This is a big pet-peeve of mine. Socioeconomic stigma appears to play a big part in how singles are viewed in public. I think it's natural for people to single out a lone person in public, but I think the morals surrounding such are often a mix. Though I know to say so is highly controversial, I find that there are those who actively look for lonely people and this honestly makes me sick. There's nothing more unusual and/or antisocial than picking on a lone individual out of thousands of people in one city and passively or discreetly studying that person's body language. Doing so doesn't guarantee that said bully will learn anything that isn't totally arbitrary because these are often isolated situations.
Click to expand...
I think you really missed the point of my post. It was a hypothetical “random person” scenario. Literally any person walking down the street. My point was regardless of their physical demeanour: “effeminate” or “masculine” or “reserved” or “flamboyant” or “pick whatever adjective you like” - there is no way to accurately infer that person’s sexuality. In a general context there is no neccesary connection.

I wasn’t saying anything about monitoring individuals in real life for the sake of guessing their sexuality or other business. God knows, I spent 90 % of my time in the city, all cities I’ve visited, being that lone and lonely (or self/absorbed) guy. You are picking a beef where there is none to be had.

However, that said, if you change the context from ‘random observation of random person on random street at random time’ to something more correlatable with sexuality then the correlation between observable demeanour and sexual orientation might be stronger. But then the real determinant is location.

I have in mind Oxford st Sydney at 9 PM on a saturday night. The majority of people there are likely gay but they’ll present across a glorious range of demeanours that make the idea of an essential gayness that can be spotted pretty ridiculous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perforated said:
I think you really missed the point of my post. It was a hypothetical “random person” scenario. Literally any person walking down the street. My point was regardless of their physical demeanour: “effeminate” or “masculine” or “reserved” or “flamboyant” or “pick whatever adjective you like” - there is no way to accurately infer that person’s sexuality. In a general context there is no neccesary connection.

I wasn’t saying anything about monitoring individuals in real life for the sake of guessing their sexuality or other business. God knows, I spent 90 % of my time in the city, all cities I’ve visited, being that lone and lonely (or self/absorbed) guy. You are picking a beef where there is none to be had.

However, that said, if you change the context from ‘random observation of random person on random street at random time’ to something more correlatable with sexuality then the correlation between observable demeanour and sexual orientation might be stronger. But then the real determinant is location.

I have in mind Oxford st Sydney at 9 PM on a saturday night. The majority of people there are likely gay but they’ll present across a glorious range of demeanours that make the idea of an essential gayness that can be spotted pretty ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to react as such. My pet peeve is something I sought to mention as such that it is something that I hold personal only on the grounds that I witness it in my particular settings. I didn't mean to cross these things online to suggest that... I guess what I meant to say is that I have beef with people who live in or drive through my town, which is not relevant. sorry.

I have bolded out what you posted there because I thought it was neat. I think that is a very wise understanding and quite unique as well. I'll have to think on that for now. Thanks; that's pretty cool.
 
The study is wrong. Gaydar is real and it can be accurate, but a lot of guys don't use it well because it's clouded by wishful thinking.

Think about it. Gay men grow up in an environment where they can't reveal that they are into men, and they also can't reveal that they are looking at another man. So they have to give off signals so subtle that hetero people won't notice but other gay men might. Sometimes the signals are conscious and other times they're unconscious.

The 'gay voice' or stereotypical feminine demeanor has been debunked. Those behaviours are shaped by the gender/sex of people you tend to grow up around. Gay men who sound like women are that way because they grew up around women, but the same is true of hetero men who grew up around women -- they can sound feminine. There are lots of masc gay men who grew up around men and lots of femme gay men who grew up around women. We focus on the femme gay men as the stereotype because they are the most obvious, while the the closeted masc guys pass as hetero and we never notice them.

That is where gaydar comes from... the ability to subtlely detect another gay man. It's not always accurate, but it has been for me A LOT.
 
ppl send out signals and others pick up on them, both mostly unconsciously.

I like to people watch and I think I am fairly good at clocking gays and trans's's's(i use the terms as a description not to disparage anyone, some of my best romantic interests are gay/trans's's's's's's's's's) but even if i was 100% on someone being gay or trans i wouldn't go up and ask (unless I've had a few ;)).

TL;DR if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck I'll think to myself that its a duck even if its got a beard or surgery. and i might try and feed it bread;).
 
Last edited:
Foreigner said:
Those behaviours are shaped by the gender/sex of people you tend to grow up around. Gay men who sound like women are that way because they grew up around women, but the same is true of hetero men who grew up around women -- they can sound feminine. There are lots of masc gay men who grew up around men and lots of femme gay men who grew up around women. We focus on the femme gay men as the stereotype because they are the most obvious, while the the closeted masc guys pass as hetero and we never notice them.

That is where gaydar comes from... the ability to subtlely detect another gay man. It's not always accurate, but it has been for me A LOT.
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense. I'm probably just taking this a bit out of context, but I'm wondering how the dice might roll for a straight man who grows up mostly around women.

I always thought of it as an empathetic touch, but then again I modeled myself after witnessing things that were mostly just heinous and a lot of my friends grew up to have tendencies towards women that I hate so I guess I don't really have any friends. At least not anymore. 'Probably just a hopeless drive to be an antihero and sulk.

I'm starting to think the reason I posted this thread in the first place was more reactionary if anything.

I have learned a lot though
 
Foreigner said:
The study is wrong. Gaydar is real and it can be accurate, but a lot of guys don't use it well because it's clouded by wishful thinking.

Think about it. Gay men grow up in an environment where they can't reveal that they are into men, and they also can't reveal that they are looking at another man. So they have to give off signals so subtle that hetero people won't notice but other gay men might. Sometimes the signals are conscious and other times they're unconscious.

The 'gay voice' or stereotypical feminine demeanor has been debunked. Those behaviours are shaped by the gender/sex of people you tend to grow up around. Gay men who sound like women are that way because they grew up around women, but the same is true of hetero men who grew up around women -- they can sound feminine. There are lots of masc gay men who grew up around men and lots of femme gay men who grew up around women. We focus on the femme gay men as the stereotype because they are the most obvious, while the the closeted masc guys pass as hetero and we never notice them.

That is where gaydar comes from... the ability to subtlely detect another gay man. It's not always accurate, but it has been for me A LOT.
Click to expand...
Yeah. And there's a lot in betwen too. Over time as we get to know more types of people there's a buildup here in figuring people out. It's a little bit wisdom, little bit getting older, little bit stereotyping. It's all okay. We find out when we really talk to people who they actually are. Then the whole thing can be proven dead wrong.. or correct. Keep an open mind.
 
Foreigner said:
The study is wrong. Gaydar is real and it can be accurate, but a lot of guys don't use it well because it's clouded by wishful thinking.

Think about it. Gay men grow up in an environment where they can't reveal that they are into men, and they also can't reveal that they are looking at another man. So they have to give off signals so subtle that hetero people won't notice but other gay men might. Sometimes the signals are conscious and other times they're unconscious.
Click to expand...
This is the best explanation I've heard so far, be it included in my bias or otherwise.

I just thought I'd open up this discussion because I am absolutely fucking sick of people using whatever means to attempt to discover "circumstantial gayness", having grown up around the LGBTQ culture. I just can't for the life of me figure out why supposedly straight men lurk to seek out whatever means ineffable to discover a persons affinity before it is ever displaced. I am so sickened by this behavior that I honestly just can't reason with such behaviors. I've often felt threatened by people who are so arrogant as to figure everything before hitherto that I honestly want to destroy them. Whether I'm to be considered a martyr or what-have-you. I defend open-minded people with-my-life.

Sorry for being selfish. I feel vengeful. I can't help it.
 
Last edited:
iridescentblack said:
This is the best explanation I've heard so far, be it included in my bias or otherwise.

I just thought I'd open up this discussion because I am absolutely fucking sick of people using whatever means to attempt to discover "circumstantial gayness", having grown up around the LGBTQ culture. I just can't for the life of me figure out why supposedly straight men lurk to seek out whatever means ineffable to discover a persons affinity before it is ever displaced. I am so sickened by this behavior that I honestly just can't reason with such behaviors. I've often felt threatened by people who are so arrogant as to figure everything before hitherto that I honestly want to destroy them. Whether I'm to be considered a martyr or what-have-you. I defend open-minded people with-my-life.

Sorry for being selfish. I feel vengeful. I can't help it.
Click to expand...
I can remember in numerous contexts through my life where the dominant males in a community of some type would expend considerable energy monitoring and assessing other men for signs of gayness and then use those signs as evidence to call them out and ostracise them. I noticed it first around age 12 at an all boys boarding school, then officer school in the army, and then in sales organisations of some very large global companies. Particularly in the finance sector.

Looking back I recall it being more of a middle to upper class phenomenon. At other times when I was working with less educated people from lower socio-economic backgrounds I rarely saw it. In those contexts people might call out a guy for being gay but it was often in a jocular, friendly, and overall accepting way. Same with people from different races or nationalities.

iridescentblack said:
.Whether I'm to be considered a martyr or what-have-you. I defend open-minded people with-my-life.
Click to expand...
That’s a bit melodramatic. Anyway gayness and open-mindedness are not synonyms. There is all kinds of bigotry amongst gay people. People are people. Some people find reasons to judge others and discriminate to their own advantage, others don’t. It’s the same everywhere. Part of the human condition.
 
Yeah I agree with most who have said of course people pick up on social cues. But I do not believe anyone has a 100% accurate gaydar. Especially in modern times. 50 years ago I might be assumed gay if I was strutting around in my cowboy boots and skinny jeans (some would now).
It's better to get to know someone and if you click you click.
Ive sat chatting with a girl for ages and really fancied her and thought she was flirting but she announced she was waiting for her gf. I was gutted but kept chatting just cos she was a sweet person.
 
I think blokes are better at spotting gay blokes than they are gay women. I don't know if that's true the other way though...
 
Some people who are gay tend to have very overt expressions that make it obvious. It can even be things like tone of voice, body language, etc. However, I think it's very possible to send and receive messages telepathically as well. So, it could be different things for different people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top