First a caveat. The following is not a research blog. It just gives you some of my thoughts and insights – with a little dose of Google searching added.
I bet that most of us have heard of the concept of “gaydar” sometimes defined as an intuitive ability to assess the sexual orientation of another person from subtle cues. I know that this concept is wracked with potentially dangerous stereotypes. My intention has always been to talk about it in good fun, and never to be disparaging.
I did a quick internet search to see if I could find any real research on the subject. In short, there appears to be some evidence that indicates some human attributes are generally more prevalent in gay people than straight people.
A recent blog from Psychology Today cites one researcher who indicates four sets of nonverbal cues to sexual orientation that he labels the four A’s: adornment, actions, acoustics, and appearance.
Adornment refers to the way people dress and do their hair. In short, the idea is that statistically more gay men are inclined to dress more fashionably than non-gay men. This doesn’t apply to me. I’m no more fashionable than the next guy – gay or straight.
Action cues are based on the mannerisms people exhibit while they move. In short, the research implies that statistically more gay men tend to sway their hips like straight women than do straight men. I think this applies to me a bit. In the past, I’ve taken a stab at “walking like a man.” I have to concentrate so hard on moving with less hip action that I look like I’m wearing a badly fitted back brace. And I can’t even keep moving like that for more than a few seconds before I revert back to the real me.
Acoustics refers to “nonverbal speech cues.” Although the article doesn’t give specific examples, I imagine things like vocal inflections. I think that’s me. I’ve taken a stab at “talking like a man” too– for example, talking with less dramatic inflections. I sound kind of like a robot from a bad 1950’s movie.
Appearance refers to facial characteristics. Apparently, people shown pictures of faces only – adornments removed – for as little as a tenth of a second are better than chance at assessing sexual orientation. I don’t understand this at all.
I found a fun little test on line that attempts to measure one’s gaydar by looking at some pictures. Although no scientific credentials were cited, I “accurately” assessed the gay people 65% of the time simply looking at their pictures – higher than the 58.5% average.
It’s important to remember that even these (sometimes silly) studies don’t imply that possessing these attributes means one is gay. They make it clear that people can possess one or more of them and not be gay.
But I’m not sure how much of any of this I really buy.
To me, it’s all in the eyes.
I think that usually, men look at other men in a certain way. When a straight man meets another man, he certainly looks into that man’s eyes, but not the same way a gay man looks into another potentially gay man’s eyes. A man who is sexually attracted to other men doesn’t just look at another man’s eyes –he looks into those eyes.
He looks behind the eyes and into the soul. And he looks for a longer period of time – maybe even a fraction of a second longer – before he looks away, but longer none-the-less.
And if the guy he’s looking at is also attracted to men, that man looks back in the same way – into rather than at the eyes. Then the gaydar sounds off. The two guys immediately understand – “we’re both the same.”
This leads me to Gaydar 2.0. Many years ago, I “developed” a new and improved version of gaydar. Gaydar 2.0 answers two questions: “Is he sexually attracted to men?” and “Does he know it?” When I look at another man I get some results.
“Yes/Yes” means he’s attracted to men, and he knows it for sure. He looks back at me and into my eyes. He lets me look into his eyes long enough to get the affirmative “Yep, that’s me inside.”
“Yes/No” means he’s attracted to men, but he’s not very conscious of it. He looks back at me longer than a non-gay man might. He lets me look into his eyes as well, but turns away very quickly and a bit “unknowingly.”
All of this happens in seconds – sometimes even shorter. I may be all wet on this. And it may be completely ridiculous. When I tell people about Gaydar 2.0 I’m usually joking around. My gay brothers could weigh in on this concept.
But why do I bring all of this up?
Here’s a question that I’ve been asked relatively frequently: “Did you know you were gay or bi when you got married?”
For now, I’ll answer it this way. If Gaydar 2.0 is even remotely a real thing, and if a gay guy had looked me into my eyes, he would have found me to be a “Yes/No” – or perhaps a “Yes/Maybe.”
I knew I had sexual attraction to men. I didn’t believe I was gay. I wasn’t fully accepting or didn’t even understand my sexuality. I loved women. I knew I wanted to be a father someday. My understanding was that gay men didn’t become fathers.
There were (and still are) a lot of religious and social constructs designed to bury that consciousness in people with same-sex attraction. I easily melted into that silent pressure. The idea of having a wonderful, “normal” life was extremely appealing. And of course, I met Debbie. Anyone who knows Debbie would understand why I fell madly in love with her. Who wouldn’t?
I believe I was as honest as I could be. I’ll write about this more in future blogs.
But in the meantime, I ask you this: What if there was a test or tool – a truly reliable one? What if a young woman or man could take that test and know for sure – and be accepted and loved whatever the results? Sexuality isn’t – and will never be – that simple. But hopefully someday society will simply be that loving.