No Straignt Man in the World Would Ever say That

I, too, want to know the answer to the gaydar question. As a few gay men on this thread have stated, they do act like the stereotypical gay man.

I have never much cared whether a certain person was gay or straight. I just never thought about it much, and if you had asked me I would have said that no, you couldn’t tell a person’s sexual preference by looking at them. My current boyfriend disagrees with me, though, and sometimes points out men who he thinks are gay. I’m starting to change my opinion and agree with him more. Case in point : several weeks ago, my gay cousin stopped by to visit one night. He was visiting friends in a nearby city, and he and two friends drove to my house to say hi. I had no clue if his friends were gay or not, but I knew within 5 minutes of talking to them that they were. They didn’t say anything about their sexual preference until later in the evening, but these three followed every gay stereotype known to humanity.

I also knew a woman who had several gay siblings. She said that her gay brothers definitely acted gay, and when she called them they’d answer in their “gay” voice but quickly change to “straight” when they found out who was calling. She had no problems or hangups with them being gay - this was simply an observation on her part.

So what’s the deal? There seems to be very good evidence that in general, a person acts differently depending on their sexual preference. Now, I know that there are always exceptions to the rule, but my point is that there does seem to be a rule. Any thoughts (like I need to ask that to THIS crowd!)?

In my uninformed opinion, it seems to me that homosexuality is a behavioral issue and only a behavioral issue. Some people would prefer to have sex with their own gender, some with the opposite gender, and some with both. In my own mind, I don’t think of anyone as being a so-called straight/gay/lesbian/bi/whatever. There are just individuals who choose to engage in certain kinds of activity.

But I guess respecting individuals as individuals who make their own choices rather detracts from the idea that there’s any kind of gay “culture” or “community”. And perhaps (he very tentatively suggested) takes away any excuses for that behavior as well.

And as for the recognition issue, I think it also comes down to behavior. As Athena said,

I wouldn’t be surprised if their body language changed completely as well. I don’t have many homosexual friends or acquaintences (that I know of), so perhaps I’m uninformed. But sometimes wouldn’t a homosexual person be recognized because he or she wants to be recognized? If I’m in a pub or something hitting on a girl, I’m sure that I (partly unconsciously) sent out all kinds of signals that I’m heterosexual and available.

DHR

DavidForster, shut the fuck up. It was a simple statement correctly using the word “they”. Any implications therein are of your making, no one elses, so get off it. It is a shame that idiots spend their time chastising this shit instead of real racism, and prejudice, but I guess true biggots are to difficult to deal with. You’d rather put words in someones mouth and then act all high and mighty about it, makes you feel good about yourself I guess. Heaven forbid a real discussion about a sensitive topic actually get started and possible clear up something. I guess its better that you tell everyone to shush in fear of violating some vital PC guidelines. Christ I thought I’d avoid politics, but I guess not.

Coffeecat, if you thought my observation was a slam, I assure you it wasn’t. Probably I worded it poorly (the written word is apparently harsher than the spoken), and probably I should’nt’ve led off the piece with it… But in any case, Peace to you.

Athena and Doghouse Reilly, yes, you’ve put your figurative fingers on it when you identify cultural- and contextual-specific behavior and communicative intent as the genesis of your observations. That is, people tend to act the way they are expected or “allowed” to act by the people around them, and those actions change as the situation does. Also, people adjust “their signals” according to what they want at the moment.

Sometimes, when you catch someone in a situation that is new for you but old for them - say, seeing a co-worker at hi/r home for the first time, or your own kid at school - you can be surprised by “how different” they are. Part of that is them acting they way they are accustomed to acting, which also involves how those around them accept them acting, different social power structures, etc. Most people adjust their behavior to the situation without ever thinking about it, which could explain your friend’s brothers - as they realized they were acting in their “straight” world, they moved out of their (apparently more common) “gay” world and assumed those mannerisms they have learned are acceptable to “straights” and dropped those that aren’t. And that could all be more or less subconscious.

Omniscient, I respectfully suggest you have misapprehended my meaning, or at least that you have overreacted. Perhaps it’s my fault, perhaps yours, perhaps just an indication of how overly-sensitive, defensive, even angry our society has become; probably it’s all three. But anyway, Peace.

David

Omni didn’t overreact at all; you did.

Regards

David, what other pronoun should coffeecat have used? I? We? He? She? You? None of them would have made much sense, except plausibly “you”–which still would have implied the entire SDMB audience. The entire audience isn’t gay, and so it wouldn’t be the most accurate. “They” was a completely appropriate choice of words.

I do find it a sign of integrity that you later explained you weren’t meaning to be hostile. We could use a whole lot more of that on this board. :slight_smile:

Peace back atcha.

Geneticists say how one leans
Ain’t from one’s rearing, books, or screens.
I don’t know DNA
But this I can say:
It depends on whose rear’s in the jeans.

Tenn, thats a good one.

David, First let me say that the swearing wasn’t entirely directed at you, and therefore may not have been appropriate. I do however intend to express the strength of my frustration with every thread on this board that deals with a subject where politics, race, orientation, religion or other potentially loaded topic is completely shut down because of rampant PCisms and holier-than-thou corrections of “impolite” speech. Now this type of stuff is fine in GD style quasi-flame wars, and debate of the unanswerable opinions, but this and any question like it that asks a straight forward question, or solicits individual opinions on sensitive subject matter isn’t helped by your type of correction (not to single you out, it happens all the time). In all the time reading and posting sensitive messages, I have never been confronted by the supposed victimized group. I am certain that many gays, minorities, and various religions post here yet they don’t feel the need to reign in anyones comments. Not that any ever get inflamitory unless included in the pit or GD. PC censored speech doesn’t lend itself to productive debate or constructve problem solving. I think that if we feel comfortable talking about issues like homosexuality without censoring our thoughts and speech then the goals of equality have been achieved.

Athena asked about how gaydar works.

Well Athena, gaydar as we commonly call it is a set of subtle signals that tell whether or not someone is gay. It is easier to explain with examples. Example 1) Straight men rarely will make eye contact with you on the street or shopping. If they do make eye contact, they will quickly turn their eyes away. Gay men will usually make prolonged eye contact, especially if they think you are cute. :wink: This is a generalization. Example 2) Mannerisms don’t necessarily mean the person is gay. Oftentimes they do, but not always. (Think swishy) Example 3) Goatees used to be a sign but straight people are slowly taking them over. Example 4) There is a gay man code/handshake. I may loose my toaster for this one but it’s true. It involves a specially trained smile and several different motions. I could tell you what the handshake is, but then I would have to kill you…or be killed myself. I think I have said to much. Wait a second…who are you? What is that in your hand? I didn’t give away any new inf…

SC

PS. Now guess which ones are true.


“People’s Poet don’t die, we’ll kill ourselves if you do, but first we’ll take off all our clothes.” The Young Ones

Doghouse Reilly said, “In my uninformed opinion…”

Yes, it is uninformed.

“There are just individuals who choose to engage in certain kinds of activity.”

So, you chose to be straight? You experienced all that homosexuality had to offer (it really is not much) and decided that heterosexuality works for you. Well, I am happy for you. Most people don’t choose their orientation. The orientation may be reinforced by certain behaviours but it is still an integral part of the person.

“But I guess respecting individuals as individuals who make their own choices rather detracts from the idea that there’s any kind of gay “culture” or “community”. And perhaps (he very tentatively suggested) takes away any excuses for that behavior as well.”

Webster’s defines a community as follows:
“Main Entry: com·mu·ni·ty
Pronunciation: k&-'myü-n&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English comunete, from Middle French comuneté, from Latin communitat-, communitas, from communis
Date: 14th century
1 : a unified body of individuals: as a : STATE, COMMONWEALTH b : the people with common interests living in a particular area; broadly : the area itself <the problems of a large community> c : an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location d : a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society <a community of retired persons> e : a group linked by a common policy f : a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests <the international community> g : a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society <the academic community>
2 : society at large
3 a : joint ownership or participation <community of goods> b : common character : LIKENESS <community of interests> c : social activity : FELLOWSHIP d : a social state or condition”

You used faulty logic. Pretty much every definition here can be applied to a gay community. We exist. We are out there. We live in ghettos, your neighborhood, the country, the city, everywhere.

Webster’s defines culture as follows:
“Main Entry: 1cul·ture
Pronunciation: 'k&l-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin cultura, from cultus, past participle
Date: 15th century
5 a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man’s capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation”

B from the above particularly apply to the gay community. We have existed since civilization. (Think Greek) The oldest extant story (The Epic of Gilgamesh) is a homoerotic tale between Gilgamesh and his lover Enkidu. A large percentage of playwrites, poets, writers, clothing designers, classical composers, jazz composers, musicians in general, artists, and the like are gay. To exemplify this point even more, the best known artists were gay: Michelangelo, Da Vinci, and Rafael. Michelangelo was arrested in Florence for having a gay lover. Many of the best known composers were also gay (or teamed up with a gay person as was the case with Richard Rodgers…aka Rodgers and Hart): Samuel Barber, Gershwin, Vivaldi, Tchaikovsky, and Bernstein. The examples are way too numerous to enumerate here. The real question here is not whether or not gays have a culture but whether or not straights try to assimilate our culture into their lives. Think clothes, music, art, hairstyles, etc.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if their body language changed completely as well.”

It does change situationally to some degree. That is what happens to people when there is a threat of physical violence for being your natural self. Turning this logic around to make a point, if every time you cheered for a football game you were hit with a baseball bat very hard, you would also modify your behaviour.

“I don’t have many homosexual friends or acquaintences (that I know of)”

It’s obvious that you don’t know who they are. We are out there and most likely you know several of us. We probably avoid you like the plague because, in general, we don’t associate with people who would try to oppress us.

“…so perhaps I’m uninformed.”

Yes, you are. Very.

“But sometimes wouldn’t a homosexual person be recognized because he or she wants to be recognized?”

This statement applies to everyone.

“If I’m in a pub or something hitting on a girl, I’m sure that I (partly unconsciously) sent out all kinds of signals that I’m heterosexual and available.”

Yes, but most likely you were turned down because you also sent out signals that you were not willing to learn about your environment, had excessive gas (like most ignorant straight people), belched in her face, and were generally more interested in watching your homoerotic sports (WWF and football).

The moral of this story is, think before you respond or write. If you are truly interested in gay life, post a thread and I will be happy to respond.

SC


“People’s Poet don’t die, we’ll kill ourselves if you do, but first we’ll take off all our clothes.” The Young Ones

I have no problem seeing a man and a woman kiss each other. However, the thought of having sex with a woman seems disgusting to me. And you’re right, the mapping is completely isomorphic :slight_smile:

Re gaydar: I always wear a pride necklace, because I don’t trust other people’s gaydar.

SqrlCub said,

Sorry, but I just can’t think of it as a “be”/“not be” question. I might very well have some homosexual tendency deep within my psyche, but if I do, I’ve never chosen to act on it. I don’t think it’s necessary to “[experience] all that homosexuality had to offer” before deciding what kind of activity I prefer–I’ve never experienced all that heroin has to offer either, and I don’t necessarily have any argument with people who do shoot up, but I’ve decided it just ain’t my bag, baby. Personal choice.

As for orientation being an integral part of a person, I regard that as a political argument, not scientific. I’m sure you’ll come back with all kinds of studies “proving” that a person has an “orientation” from birth, and I’ll give that evidence the same consideration as I do the “evidence” I’ve been given that “a fetus is a person”.

I don’t read dictionary definitions in posts. If you can’t say it in your own words, don’t bother saying it. I will say that I don’t doubt there is a “gay community” out there, the same way there might be a “community” of microlight enthusiasts. I just don’t give such a community and its interests the same moral weighting as (say) Blacks or Indians, whose “identity” has nothing to do with their personal choices.

Before I make an analogy, let me first preface by saying that I don’t necessarily have a problem with drugs taken in moderation (though I don’t take them myself), so my example isn’t intended to be disparaging. OK, here goes. Haven’t a lot of musicians, artists, etc. also chosen to use marijuana, LSD, peyote, and other mind-altering substances? Isn’t there some connection between the fact that they are “artistic” personalities and their seeking out of higher (or at least altered) forms of consciousness? In this case, I think the “art” came first, and the drugs were only a side effect of (or perhaps inspiration for) the art. I think it’s in the nature of the artistic personality to push boundaries and seek innovative experiences. So, it doesn’t surprise me that many artists have chosen to at least dabble in alternative sexual activities as well.

Who’s relying on the crutch of bigotry here, Squirrel? Who’s trying to derail rational discourse by resorting to crude stereotypes? Have you been “oppressed” so long that you unconsciously adopt the methods of your oppressors?

DHR

coffecat, Omniscient, LauraRae:

If you read again the first three sentences of the comment under discussion, you might agree that they were not PHRASED offensively; in fact, had I only appended the appropriate emoticon I’m sure your reaction would have been quite different. But I haven’t trained myself to use them. (Allow me to introduce my PERSONALIZED emoticon: {:-Df See my pointy head? The consultant I hired to come up with this one said it looks just like me.)

So what you gagged on was the DIRECTION the sentiments presumably contained in those sentences took. Let me say two things, and please take them for the truth: 1) I was not trying to shut the discourse down, nor trying to castigate coffeecat; and 2) I am not those other transgressors Omniscient references later, although in this case I cannot blame you for mapping my words onto their thoughts. You may judge me to share some of those; I might dispute that; we might all be partly right, but in any case save your vitriol. If you’ve read the rest of that short post you should agree that it was a simple answer - unfortunately begun. And if you prefer, we can start a thread that separately analyzes the core of “PC” motivations (which I have elsewhere argued are well-intended) versus “PC” activism or actions (which most people might agree are ultimately at odds with the stated beliefs and likely to be self-defeating, as well as often annoying as hell).

Let me further share with you my (alleged) thought processes as I read coffeecat’s post. I think we can all understand that 1) this was a quick, instinctual/emotional type of reaction, not the slow, logical process portrayed, and 2) this is after the fact and further subject to rationalization, ego-protection, etc., so take it for all it’s worth. NONETHELESS, what follows is as true as I can make it as a communication of what I did (almost instantaneously) “think.” Thus:

My reaction derived from the perceived connotation of the use of the pronoun “they,” because, if “they” refers specifically to coffeecat’s gay friends and gay friends-of-friends, then logically (it seemed instantly to me) coffecat has already answered cc’s own question. “They” find partners from among their cohort of friends, no mystery and thus no question, and no “gaydar” involved. You are quite correct to point out that, GRAMMATICALLY, there is no fault in using the pronoun “they,” and that no other pronoun works. But it seemed to me that SEMANTICALLY “they” doesn’t - as a specifier - work either, and also because the question clearly (to me, at warp speed) didn’t mean to ask, ‘And if theres no such thing as “gaydar,” how did those previously mentioned people find each other?’ Having thus “logically” eliminated (of course it was no such thing) the possibility that “they” meant exactly and only those people, the next conclusion is that it was being used generally. Which was all I thought I was pointing out. (Hell, do you people (oops…) even BELIEVE in Freudian slips?)

So it was my bad. But also not just your average-bear knee-jerk reaction. (Turning to the only expert available…) So, ahem, coffeecat, what was it: general They, meaning “all” gays, or only your friends and friends of friends? And NO, neither choice makes you guilty of anything (“those people”-wise nor otherwise). But I got flamed pretty good here, if briefly, and feel in need of something with which to solace myself. Peace in any case.

I spose I’d’a said: “And if there’s no such thing as “gaydar,” how do gay men find each other?” BIG diff., I know. And enough apologies and rationalizations (but it’s all true!).

beatle: Perhaps we do not share an understanding regarding what consists accepted behavior in an intellectual arena. Or else you thought I was flaming coffeecat…

Doghouse Reilly: You may choose to see “orientation…as a political argument, not scientific,” and I may choose to see that as Wrong Wrong Wrong (I must admit, the scientific book still looks, unfortunately, open for argument) - BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER. Actually, that whole line of argument is irrelevant. POLITICALLY SPEAKING it’s not my business what “life choice” you make, nor your business concerning SqrlCub, etc. Period. And no one needs to “excuse” anything to you or me. Double exclamation point.

SqrlCub: I think you made your point quite well even without the personal attack. Just my opinion, but since personal attacks rarely serve anything other than to end a discussion, avoid 'em when possible.

I was gonna stay out of this, but:

Regarding the arguments about orientation being genetic or learned: All things being equal, all things are never equal.

Life is complex. There is black, there is white, there is a whole lot of gray area. A rainbow of colors, too, thankfully!

My point is that we have a tendency to define ourselves out of existence. I’m sure that there are a few people who would be straight or gay from birth, always, no matter what the circumstances. I bet there are a lot of others who might bend one way or another depending on an infinite number of variables.

I went through a drug-addled, anarchist, rebellious stage in college. Had sex with all sorts of folks(male and female) that I would probably not have been with in any other situation. Today, I consider myself predominantly hetero. I could imagine having sex with probably half the women I meet. Perhaps 1 out of 100 men look as good.

I still hate the label straight, because (for me) the word has sociopolitical connotations that don’t fit me well. But I’m not gay or even bi, except maybe in theory. So what the fuck am I?

Just sexual, I guess. Kinda like answering the question “what race?” with human.

TennHippie: “Just sexual, I guess.”

Just like my favourite ex-boyfriend… Ter? That you?

I was under the impression this was supposed to be a fun thread… can’t we all just fuck and get along?

(Um, I mean, can’t we all just fuckin’ get along?)


Veni, Vidi, Visa … I came, I saw, I bought.

I apologize for the personal attack on you Doghouse. I was in an extra bad mood yesterday. (See my other threads.) But all my other points are still valid. I don’t apologize for those, just the personal attack. I know that we won’t reconcile our differences regarding sexual orientation. You see it from the right-wing conservative view, I experience it from the left-wing liberal commie homo view. They are completely different and rarely do they reconcile. I don’t really care what you believe about my life and friends as long as you don’t actively try to oppress us. It is one of the great things about our current world. You were right, I could post hundreds of reasons, with backing proof that support my point of you. I am sure if you tried hard enough you could find them as well. I also know that this will waste my time because it won’t suitably convince you otherwise. I will leave it at that. If you want to discuss it more we can take it to the great debates forum.

DavidForster, thank you for pointing out my faux pas. You are right of course. Violence begets violence even when it is not in a physical sense.

HUGS!
SqrlCub


“People’s Poet don’t die, we’ll kill ourselves if you do, but first we’ll take off all our clothes.” The Young Ones