Once again - Gaydar

[wolfcamp]

I ran across this story about gaydar, and I thought I'd share. I've never had good gaydar, so it was interesting to read this. Do my 501 jeans give me away? :eek:


Test Your Gaydar
Can You Tell If Someone's Gay?
By JOHN STOSSEL
November 1, 2005 (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=207269&page=1)

[wolfcamp]

You know that guy Dr. Michael Bailey is full of bullshit right? He says how if you're a man and bisexual how you're really gay.

I don't pay much attention to that. If a man wants to have intimate, physical contact with another man, it doesn't really matter what label you put on it.

Gaydar has been much discussed here. I'm just curious about how to spot guys who might be interested in me. I'm not good at it. I'm also curious about what signals I might be giving. The link may be BS, or not. I just thought it was an interesting read.

[softfruit]

Bailey's so-called "research" is indeed massively discredited and deservedly so -- but it's still an entertaining article for a starting-off point of a thread: is "gaydar" real; do gays have better gaydar than straights; and if bidar exists can anyone help all of us here to improve ours!?

[tg Shannon]

my oppinion of Gaydar is just this, someone invented the term because it rhymed with radar and they ran into someone like liberace or christopher lowell, in other words, it was someone who was so obviously gay that only a clueless individual would pass them over for being straight, either that or if they were'nt gay they missed their chance, I have gay friends that if you were to shoot the shit with them and hang out with them, you would not have a clue that they were gay, infact you would think they were straight as an arrow and I have straight friends that you would have second thoughts about if you met them, bottom line is, gaydar is a catchphrase and that can call for reactions that are unfavorable, so lay off and live and let live ok?
didnt mean to come off strong or piss anyone off, just statein the facts folks
Mike

[MaybeSayMaybe]

The idea that one can just size another person up and read out their internal state of mind is very alluring, and is usually a fantasy. Most people wear a mask as they go about their daily business. But sometimes that mask comes off temporarily, and for a short period of time they cannot lie. That is when you take the data and learn.

In the movie Monster there is a scene where the prostitute who is moving towards bisexuality is in a public place with the lesbian for whom she was feeling less and less hostility. The prostitute starts pointing at people at random and spilling out their internal state of mind - and getting it right, often with hilarious results. She can pull this off because she is paying the price for this kind of awareness. Most people would not be willing to pay that price if they had the choice.

The rest of us rarely see the masks come off, but it does happen, and one pays a price for the knowledge, usually not willingly. One gets the insights into the statistical breakdown of human nature - the stuff that never quite makes it into psychology books or the newspapers. And to think that this whole world exists right under our noses everyday. Like the saying goes - If you're hot you're hot, and if you're not, you're not.

Remember the Kevin Ayers song Mr. Cool? He kind of says the same thing.

[PearlGirl]

I thought it was really lame that the research only included "gaydar" among men and also REALLY lame that bisexual wasn't even an option for people. Just my:2cents:

[DiamondDog]

My bidar/gaydar is pretty much flawless and always has been.

I have it, and I can tell which men and women are bi/gay even without talking to them and I can do it even at looking at pictures of them.

It works in crowds, in all sorts of places, and it seems random but there's no way that it is since I've been 100% correct with it more often than I can count. I've also had other bisexuals/homosexuals be able to easily tell this about me.

bicdmale-I'm not talking about picking up people who are walking stereotypes either, like flaming queens or the "Oh Mary!" types either.

I know what I wrote sounds weird but it's true.

Softfruit-It's not something you can teach someone, you either have it or you don't. :2cents:

[darkeyes]

My bidar/gaydar is pretty much flawless and always has been.

I have it, and I can tell which men and women are bi/gay even without talking to them and I can do it even at looking at pictures of them.

It works in crowds, in all sorts of places, and it seems random but there's no way that it is since I've been 100% correct with it more often than I can count. I've also had other bisexuals/homosexuals be able to easily tell this about me.

bicdmale-I'm not talking about picking up people who are walking stereotypes either, like flaming queens or the "Oh Mary!" types either.

I know what I wrote sounds weird but it's true.

Softfruit-It's not something you can teach someone, you either have it or you don't. :2cents:A rite shag-gy doggie story an all..:tong:

[stephen666]

isnt that Bailey guy the one who"proved " male bisexualitys a myth?
a lot of his research is flawed. even the people who work with him find faults with his methods

[wolfcamp]

The guy I really have a problem with is John Stossel who hosts 20/20 on ABC. I used to like his shows until I noticed that many of them miss the mark and don't consider all sides. He once did a show on custodial fathers that got me worked up, and then did another show on climate change (skeptic) that (I thought) was way off base. Now, from what I gather here, he is off again.

[allbimyself]

The guy I really have a problem with is John Stossel who hosts 20/20 on ABC. I used to like his shows until I noticed that many of them miss the mark and don't consider all sides. He once did a show on custodial fathers that got me worked up, and then did another show on climate change (skeptic) that (I thought) was way off base. Now, from what I gather here, he is off again.
LOL. Yeah, the world is FULL of journalists that "consider all sides."

NOT!

I don't know which is more dishonest, a journalist coloring a story with his prejudices (knowingly or not) OR a journalist that is only after ratings.