Gaydar

[LeCharivari]

Some of you gentlemen don't seem to get out in the Thai community much if you really haven't noticed the extremely pointy toed shoes that many gay men wear. And while I have seen a straight man wearing a shoe with a slight point, the extreme pointy ones have always been worn by gay men....

What makes you so sure they are all gay?

We don't all act like Louie Spence, and an increasing number of straight men (especially Thais) act like Andrew Stone - maybe its you who needs to get out more!

[LadyHeather]

Some of you gentlemen don't seem to get out in the Thai community much if you really haven't noticed the extremely pointy toed shoes that many gay men wear. And while I have seen a straight man wearing a shoe with a slight point, the extreme pointy ones have always been worn by gay men....

What makes you so sure they are all gay?

We don't all act like Louie Spence, and an increasing number of straight men (especially Thais) act like Andrew Stone - maybe its you who needs to get out more!

I sincerely doubt you have any idea of how much I do get out or how many gay male friends I have so perhaps you need to reconsider your overly defensive post here. It's interesting to note that you don't quote my entire post either.

Nowhere did I say all gay men act a certain way or dress a certain way, did I? But you automatically leap to false conclusions it would seem.

Edited August 7, 2011 by LadyHeather

[LeCharivari]

Some of you gentlemen don't seem to get out in the Thai community much if you really haven't noticed the extremely pointy toed shoes that many gay men wear. And while I have seen a straight man wearing a shoe with a slight point, the extreme pointy ones have always been worn by gay men....

What makes you so sure they are all gay?

We don't all act like Louie Spence, and an increasing number of straight men (especially Thais) act like Andrew Stone - maybe its you who needs to get out more!

I sincerely doubt you have any idea of how much I do get out or how many gay male friends I have so perhaps you need to reconsider your overly defensive post here. It's interesting to note that you don't quote my entire post either.

Nowhere did I say all gay men act a certain way or dress a certain way, did I? But you automatically leap to false conclusions it would seem.

You are quite correct - I have as little idea of how much you get out or how many gay male friends you have as I do interest in that particular area.

My point, which you appear to have missed entirely in your own "overly defensive post", was that you were stereotyping straight men as much as you were gay men and appeared to deny the possibility that "a straight man" would ever wear "extremely pointy" shoes, as well as inferring that men (gay or straight) didn't "notice things like shoes and hair". For the young urban Thai community camp is cool (as it is for the metrosexuals/heteropolitans) and shoes and hair are important to them whether they are gay or straight - something you appear to be unaware of.

Maybe answering my simple question ("What makes you so sure they are all gay? ") instead of ignoring it would give a little credibility to your argument.

[Ijustwannateach]

And yet another light-hearted topic becomes a stew of bicker...

Again, this is not a court of law, and these are not legal arguments. Please do proceed on a 'giving the benefit of the doubt' basis, as one would in typically functional human conversations, in which people whose credibility is not seriously in question are not generally challenged to give evidence of observations they feel comfortably competent to make. So, I'm going to ask that for the purposes of this discussion, or even the entire gay subforum, that we assume that- unless the writer himself has stated he was unsure in a particular case, as I did in the OP about a young man (who was NOT wearing pointy shoes, by the by)- or unless other things have thrown someone's stated claims into question- that the individuals posting have a moderately functional gaydar when they so claim- whether their claims are about gays, as Lady Heather makes, or straights, as Jdinasia makes. It wouldn't be the most outrageous thing members have asked us to believe.

[LeCharivari]

Not questioning Lady H's credibility at all, or her observations - anything but, I am taking everything she has said at face value - and definitely not asking for any sort of legal proof for her conclusion.

I was simply asking asking her what the indicators were that made her so sure these people were all gay.

As a woman she doesn't have "gaydar"*, so it would be interesting to know what the indicators are that enable her to pick out gays more accurately and more positively than those who do.

As no-one else posting here (including gays such as you, JT, JD, endure, IB or myself) is able to be so positive it would not only be interesting to know how she does it, but we could all learn something useful and avoid those potentially embarrassing "mistakes" we have all made when we think someone is gay who is straight (and vice-versa).

*: Gaydar: The putative ability of homosexuals to recognize one another intuitively or by means of very slight indications. .... the supposed instinctive ability of gay people to identify others who are also gay

[sbk]

Last I heard LC, gaydar can be applied to all genders and is no longer restricted to homosexuals. And yes, among Thai men some are very obviously gay, others not obviously so.

But I must concur with IJWT that your post came across as unnecessarily aggressive and personal. If you disagree with someone it certainly is possible to do so without posting in that manner.

[jdinasia]

Last I heard LC, gaydar can be applied to all genders and is no longer restricted to homosexuals. And yes, among Thai men some are very obviously gay, others not obviously so.

But I must concur with IJWT that your post came across as unnecessarily aggressive and personal. If you disagree with someone it certainly is possible to do so without posting in that manner.

People who are not gay may think they have "gaydar" but by definition it is a gay thing. I know some Thais that are not gay that many people think are .... but gay men usually get it right. Str8 people tend to rely on flamboyancy to make the determination while gay men read other more subtle clues. I do know a few FH's/FF's/GP's who think they have it ... but they don't. They still miss the subtle clues that distinguish a metrosexual from a gay guy ... and almost always miss the gay guys that are closeted/working-class etc. One of my dear friends is always attracted to gay men. She doesn't have gaydar, just a screwed up attraction thing in her personality that sends her chasing a certain type of man.

BTW --- my personal gaydar took years to reset in Asia. Those subtle clues amongst the non-flaming gay guys are different here, and particularly different when it comes to picking out gay men that don't fit the stereotypes and are not interested in foreigners.

[tombkk]

BTW --- my personal gaydar took years to reset in Asia. Those subtle clues amongst the non-flaming gay guys are different here, and particularly different when it comes to picking out gay men that don't fit the stereotypes and are not interested in foreigners.

I can absolutely subsribe to that. In fact, I was utterly confused when I first came here, but got a grip over the years.

[LeCharivari]

Last I heard LC, gaydar can be applied to all genders and is no longer restricted to homosexuals. And yes, among Thai men some are very obviously gay, others not obviously so.

But I must concur with IJWT that your post came across as unnecessarily aggressive and personal. If you disagree with someone it certainly is possible to do so without posting in that manner.

In that case I apologise unreservedly to Lady Heather. My "maybe its you who needs to get out more!" was intended as no more than a light-hearted riposte to her "Some of you gentlemen don't seem to get out in the Thai community much", not as aggressive or personal.

People who are not gay may think they have "gaydar" but by definition it is a gay thing. I know some Thais that are not gay that many people think are .... but gay men usually get it right.

We agree on all counts, jd - the definition I gave of gaydar was not my own but was only the first of many similar definitions on googling gaydar definition.

As you do, I also know a number "of the 'metrosexual' set (str8, make-up wearing, eyebrow tweezing) that wear the extremely pointy shoes" - so much so, particularly among the younger Thais (16 - 24), that I would say that the majority in that particular age group are straight. Many Westerners, even including many of those who have lived here for a long time and a number of whom are gay, don't seem to realise that being "flamboyant" is not necessarily a sign of being gay amongst Thais - and even amongst a growing number of Westerners now, hence my example of Andrew Stone who is considerably more "flamboyant" than most gays. The term "emo" (from emotional) is a more accurate one for many than metrosexual as that has implications of a certain financial status.

As I said previously, "camp is cool" - Western schoolchildren acting in a "camp" or "flamboyant" way would probably be singled out and bullied at school by their male peers and shunned by their female classmates, but an increasing number of 100% straight Thai students have realised that not all girls like the cigarette smoking, tough-acting stereotype and that being able to talk about hair, fashion and make-up is a great way to pick up girls. My partner helps out occasionally in a local hair-styling/beauty salon when they are busy and they are getting an increasing number of apparently very "gay" male students coming in with their girlfriends who are not "gay" at all, but who enjoy playing the part and have the intelligence to realise that they can get to spend more time with their girl-friends by getting their hair and nails done together than they can by being macho.

"Flamboyant" is not an indicator of gay any more, and if anything it confuses the identification process. Look no further than the inevitable groups of shop assistants in any large shopping mall, such as Robinson's: in the past (in Thailand) you would often see "flamboyant" and fem gays with "ladyfriends" because they had similar interests: hair, make-up, fashion, superstars and men. Now you see them with "girlfriends" because they have similar interests: hair, make up, fashion, superstars and each other!

Edited August 11, 2011 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

yeppers, and I know some of the 'metrosexual' set (str8, make-up wearing, eyebrow tweezing) that wear the extremely pointy shoes. So we have str8 guys wearing pointy shoes, and me wearing Crocks ....

You and I may know them, JD, but I was somehow reminded of Donald Rumsfeld with all these posts of what people know and what some think they know :

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know.

I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said.

[LeCharivari]

Last I heard LC, gaydar can be applied to all genders and is no longer restricted to homosexuals. And yes, among Thai men some are very obviously gay, others not obviously so.

I should add, sbk, that just because women don't have gaydar that doesn't mean that I think they are necessarily any worse (or any better) at "detecting" gay men - just that they probably do it in a different way, which is why I am interested in LH's indicators (or any other woman's or anyone else's for that matter, not wishing to be sexist).

Taken to extremes, gaydar (for gay men) is probably dependent on some form of mutual attraction, while the female equivalent would be based on mutual (or at least one-sided) revulsion. Even if there may be no mutual attraction between two gay men there may at least be an object of mutual interest/desire - just as there could be between a gay man and a woman if they were both eyeing up the same guy!

In my limited experience the more "fem" the guy the worse their gaydar is, but I don't know if that's because some can't accept that some gay men may not find them attractive or if they don't care whether the man they want is gay or straight. Probably both.

[sbk]

What an odd assumption

Taken to extremes, gaydar (for gay men) is probably dependent on some form of mutual attraction, while the female equivalent would be based on mutual (or at least one-sided) revulsion.

I also have gay male friends and I can assure you they are not repulsed by me nor am I repulsed by them.

I tend to find gay men who are antagonistic towards women odd and wonder whats in their psyche that makes them so, in fact, I believe they not so different from hetero men who are antagonistic towards gay men IMO.

Regardless, this has little to do with footwear choices. Which must be a city thing. Country Thai people don't wear shoes much, much less pointy ones, gay or straight.

[Ijustwannateach]

^I have run into the 'female revulsion' thing among certain gay acquaintances but I don't understand it personally. Also have only had good & quite friendly and affectionate connections with female friends who knew I was gay; have only really run across that in women from overly conservative generally sex-negative frumpy types, and those're exactly the type one *doesn't* come out to....

Even though it started well, clearly, 'lighthearted' is not a concept certain posters are on board for.... Next time I'll post a deadly serious thread about gays and footwear.

[jdinasia]

BTW --- my personal gaydar took years to reset in Asia. Those subtle clues amongst the non-flaming gay guys are different here, and particularly different when it comes to picking out gay men that don't fit the stereotypes and are not interested in foreigners.

I can absolutely subsribe to that. In fact, I was utterly confused when I first came here, but got a grip over the years.

Honestly --- it took me about 4 years hanging out in areas with (other than me) just gay Thai guys ... finally one day my gaydar started working here in Thailand. (Not that it matters much --- but it is nice in a way to be able to pick out those MSM's that are not chasing farang, In fact that is where the majority of my Thai gay friends in Chiang Mai fit .. gay, conservative, not interested in white guys.

[LeCharivari]

What an odd assumption

Taken to extremes, gaydar (for gay men) is probably dependent on some form of mutual attraction, while the female equivalent would be based on mutual (or at least one-sided) revulsion.

I also have gay male friends and I can assure you they are not repulsed by me nor am I repulsed by them.

I tend to find gay men who are antagonistic towards women odd and wonder whats in their psyche that makes them so, in fact, I believe they not so different from hetero men who are antagonistic towards gay men IMO.

I couldn't agree more, sbk, as I have said before in a thread by a poster who doesn't like me naming him here who wrote that he found even the sight of the "female form" repulsive. I did say "taken to extremes", after all!

[LeCharivari]

What an odd assumption

Taken to extremes, gaydar (for gay men) is probably dependent on some form of mutual attraction, while the female equivalent would be based on mutual (or at least one-sided) revulsion.

I also have gay male friends and I can assure you they are not repulsed by me nor am I repulsed by them.

I tend to find gay men who are antagonistic towards women odd and wonder whats in their psyche that makes them so, in fact, I believe they not so different from hetero men who are antagonistic towards gay men IMO.

I couldn't agree more, sbk, as I have said before in a thread by a poster who doesn't like me naming him here who wrote that he found even the sight of the "female form" repulsive. I did say "taken to extremes", after all!

In hindsight I think the exact term used was "viscerally disgusted" rather than "repulsed",. but at least you, I and IJWT are in agreement that it is a minority view - as you say, though, let's return to footwear.

In my own case the only items of apparel where I ignore everything my partner says, as he has a far better dress sense than me, are with my underwear and my footwear where function takes absolute priority over form. Both need to be comfortable, snug but not tight, and give support where needed. Anything with points is definitely out!

[tombkk]

BTW --- my personal gaydar took years to reset in Asia. Those subtle clues amongst the non-flaming gay guys are different here, and particularly different when it comes to picking out gay men that don't fit the stereotypes and are not interested in foreigners.

I can absolutely subsribe to that. In fact, I was utterly confused when I first came here, but got a grip over the years.

Honestly --- it took me about 4 years hanging out in areas with (other than me) just gay Thai guys ... finally one day my gaydar started working here in Thailand. (Not that it matters much --- but it is nice in a way to be able to pick out those MSM's that are not chasing farang, In fact that is where the majority of my Thai gay friends in Chiang Mai fit .. gay, conservative, not interested in white guys.

It doesn't matter much, I agree. But it *is* interesting nevertheless.

[tombkk]

Taken to extremes, gaydar (for gay men) is probably dependent on some form of mutual attraction, while the female equivalent would be based on mutual (or at least one-sided) revulsion. Even if there may be no mutual attraction between two gay men there may at least be an object of mutual interest/desire - just as there could be between a gay man and a woman if they were both eyeing up the same guy!

Be careful. I think I'm not the only one taking these two sentence with a grain of salt - each, that is.

[LadyHeather]

Not questioning Lady H's credibility at all, or her observations - anything but, I am taking everything she has said at face value - and definitely not asking for any sort of legal proof for her conclusion.

I was simply asking asking her what the indicators were that made her so sure these people were all gay.

As a woman she doesn't have "gaydar"*, so it would be interesting to know what the indicators are that enable her to pick out gays more accurately and more positively than those who do.

As no-one else posting here (including gays such as you, JT, JD, endure, IB or myself) is able to be so positive it would not only be interesting to know how she does it, but we could all learn something useful and avoid those potentially embarrassing "mistakes" we have all made when we think someone is gay who is straight (and vice-versa).

*: Gaydar: The putative ability of homosexuals to recognize one another intuitively or by means of very slight indications. .... the supposed instinctive ability of gay people to identify others who are also gay

Indeed, you were.

Well, when I see a young man kissing another man on the lips and he is wearing extremely pointy toed shoes am I somehow supposed to guess that he is most likely a metro sexual? Or when I go to a nightclub that is almost exclusively men and considered a gay nightclub and a large number of the young men in the club are wearing extremely pointy toed shoes am I then supposed to gather that its unlikely they are gay since, I, as a woman, couldn't possibly know?

As I stated, you know very little about me and yet make so many false assumptions. The fact is, I have quite a few gay friends and prefer to go dancing with them when in Bangkok since gay men are so much better behaved than straight men in clubs. It is far more enjoyable to go dancing in these venues that are almost exclusively Thai and exclusively gay men (with their female friends) and I go whenever I am in Bangkok, which is fairly often.

Nowhere did I say all gay men wear pointy shoes and I find it rather amusing that so many of you leapt to that conclusion without actually reading my posts. I guess it should be no surprise that the gay men of Thai visa aren't that far different from the straight.

Edited August 12, 2011 by LadyHeather

[LeCharivari]

Taken to extremes, gaydar (for gay men) is probably dependent on some form of mutual attraction, while the female equivalent would be based on mutual (or at least one-sided) revulsion. Even if there may be no mutual attraction between two gay men there may at least be an object of mutual interest/desire - just as there could be between a gay man and a woman if they were both eyeing up the same guy!

Be careful. I think I'm not the only one taking these two sentence with a grain of salt - each, that is.

As I said (twice before!) This is only if "taken to extremes". I think IJWT's proposed thread on gaydar (and its associated identification processes) could be one of the most interesting and thought provoking topics here, so although I do not want to steal his thunder if he doesn't start it soon I will! Food for thought in the meantime (and please hold any answers unil the thread opens): if gaydar has to be adjusted to suit regional differences is it "instinctive" at all?

[LeCharivari]

(edited) ...

Well, when I see a young man kissing another man on the lips and he is wearing extremely pointy toed shoes am I somehow supposed to guess that he is most likely a metro sexual? Or when I go to a nightclub that is almost exclusively men and considered a gay nightclub and a large number of the young men in the club are wearing extremely pointy toed shoes am I then supposed to gather that its unlikely they are gay since, I, as a woman, couldn't possibly know?

Thanks for replying, Lady H, and for shedding light on your observations which not only clarify but explain your conclusions.

Under those circumstances I think most rational people would agree with you - any "young man kissing another man on the lips" and most men in a "gay nightclub" are pretty likely to be gay. As I have explained before, though, an increasing number of metrosexual/heteropolitan/emo straight men have realised that some women (like you) find it "far more enjoyable to go dancing in these venues" and find it far more enjoyable themselves, so that is where they go "with their female friends" (possibly wearing their pointy shoes) - this particular point is more suitable for a future gaydar/gay pointer thread, so I'll elaborate there if necessary.

Although you have apparently only seen "pointy shoes" being worn by men kissing each other or in gay nightclubs a number of other posters* here have seen them being worn elsewhere by men they know to be straight.

Ijwt has a similar experience to you**. That doesn't mean that you and he are right and that GP, jd and I are wrong (or viceversa) - it simply means that we have different and equally genuine experiences which, if taken together, may be a more reliable "indicator" than our own very personal and individual experiences.

Isn't sharing experience and views in order to expand our understanding, on light subjects as well as serious ones, the whole point of forums like this?

In my view the Gay Forum is far richer for having women posting here, which is why I appreciate your posts and sbk's as well as even the more extreme and controversial views of some gay and straight male posters. Just because I may not agree with them doesn't mean that I don't appreciate them (or you!).

Nowhere did I say all gay men wear pointy shoes and I find it rather amusing that so many of you leapt to that conclusion without actually reading my posts. I guess it should be no surprise that the gay men of Thai visa aren't that far different from the straight.

I can't see even one poster here saying or inferring that you said "all gay men wear pointy shoes", so I don't know why you would think that.

On the other hand I am quite impressed if you think that "the gay men of Thai visa aren't that far different from the straight" - my view has always been that gays and straights aren't that "different" from each other, so at least we agree about something.

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist." (DR)

Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. (not DR)

*: Garry P: Personally, I think those pointy shoes of court jester proportions ridiculously silly, but we have men on both sides of the divide who wear them at our office.

jdinasia: I know some of the 'metrosexual' set (str8, make-up wearing, eyebrow tweezing) that wear the extremely pointy shoes. So we have str8 guys wearing pointy shoes

**: Ijuswannateach: I've found the incidence very near 100% (pointy shoe = gay and usually flamboyant Thai)

[tombkk]

Taken to extremes, gaydar (for gay men) is probably dependent on some form of mutual attraction, while the female equivalent would be based on mutual (or at least one-sided) revulsion. Even if there may be no mutual attraction between two gay men there may at least be an object of mutual interest/desire - just as there could be between a gay man and a woman if they were both eyeing up the same guy!

Be careful. I think I'm not the only one taking these two sentence with a grain of salt - each, that is.

As I said (twice before!) This is only if "taken to extremes". I think IJWT's proposed thread on gaydar (and its associated identification processes) could be one of the most interesting and thought provoking topics here, so although I do not want to steal his thunder if he doesn't start it soon I will! Food for thought in the meantime (and please hold any answers unil the thread opens): if gaydar has to be adjusted to suit regional differences is it "instinctive" at all?

That thread should be interesting indeed.

[Ijustwannateach]

Since there seems to be some public interest, and because I am tired of the off-topic posting in the other thread, I am splitting off those posts into this topic. Enjoy.

[Ijustwannateach]

What is it: Dunno what I want to say yet.

Who has it:

To put in my two cents on this issue: I have known both straight men and women who could tell when other gay men around them were flirting/making eye contact significantly/scanning each other with gaydar/however else you want to phrase it. Even some very sensitive straight men/women who could pick up very subtle signals between gay guys.

For instance: I was in a crowded public area with a straight male friend. As we walked, a cute, not-so-obviously gay man approached from in front of us in the crowd. He was just wearing normal clothes, had normal, medium length undyed, unspiked, unmoussed hair. For a very short moment, there was... 'significant eye contact' between me and him in a manner that was strong enough for me to feel we were cruising each other... and then we passed. I said 'wow' a few moments later to my friend, and he replied 'Yeah, I saw that- very subtle, too.'

Now, I don't think my straight male friend would've had that exchange of signals himself- because he wouldn't have been open to it, nor putting out such signals- but the fact that he was aware enough to recognise what happened speaks to me of enough 'gaydar', whatever that might be (and I haven't tried to define it closely) to recognise two gay guys in pretty much the same way that I would recognise two OTHER gay guys sending signals at each other- and I think that counts for something.

[tombkk]

IJWT: Maybe it wasn't as subtle as you think.

I have two anecdotes to contribute to this threat (which luckily is not about pointy shoes, as I know nothing about those):

1.) I just came back from Phnom Penh. For the first time, I was part of a group with a tour guide. At one famous tourist site he mentioned that there are also many gay men here in the evening. He said that "we" (he meant himself and probably the majority of the straight population) wouldn't know, but the gay men they recognise each other "somehow" and that's how they meet. I thought he was desribing a gay cruising area and saying that gaydar does exist. I found it funny that a straight man knew about it.

2.) Silom Soi 4 starts with some straight places and when you walk deeper into it suddenly turns gay. Often enough I sit on one of these outdoor tables and watch straight couples walk across the invisible line - it usually takes the women only a few seconds to recognise what exactly has changed but it leaves the man clueless until he notices that there are no girls and then takes a closer look. I wouldn't call the man's realisation of where he is gaydar, but I do think that women have a feeling for it. (I say "feeling", because I reserve the word "gaydar" for gay men.)

One of my best friends is straight. We had known each other for a couple of years (and it never came up) when I met his then-grilfriend (now wife) for the first time. She instantly knew I was gay, asked him about it the next day and he said she couldn't be wronger. By now, we laugh about this.

Oh, and another anecdote (this is the last anecdote, I swear): I was walking towards the Queens discotheque in Paris, when the bouncer (a 2-meter bodyguard-type, but I think he was straight) looked down on me and said in a threatening voice: "We are a gay club". Me (feeling a bit intimidated): "I know, that's why I'm here". He just said "Oh" and let me pass...

None of these anecdotes tell about me meeting a gay person. I just wanted to put some things together to make a point that gaydar does exist.

[LeCharivari]

I would have preferred to include "and what are the alternatives?" in case it doesn't exist, but thanks for splitting this off, IJWT.

Just from this thread (sorry to have edited and not attributed the quotes, but they are simply examples):

Str8 people ... still miss the subtle clues that distinguish a metrosexual from a gay guy ... and almost always miss the gay guys that are closeted/working-class etc.

my personal gaydar took years to reset in Asia. Those subtle clues amongst the non-flaming gay guys are different here, and particularly different when it comes to picking out gay men that don't fit the stereotypes and are not interested in foreigners.

I was utterly confused when I first came here, but got a grip over the years.

it took me about 4 years hanging out in areas with (other than me) just gay Thai guys ... finally one day my gaydar started working here in Thailand.

I have known both straight men and women who could tell when other gay men around them were flirting/making eye contact significantly/scanning each other with gaydar/however else you want to phrase it. Even some very sensitive straight men/women who could pick up very subtle signals between gay guys.

Those who have posted about gaydar here and in other threads consistently refer to "re-setting" or "adjusting" their gaydar here to be able to read the "subtle clues" and "subtle signals" - that to me, confirms what I have always thought since I first heard of gaydar - it is NOT "intuitive" or "instinctive" at all, but it is based on observation, experience and practice. Gay men probably tend to be better at it than straight men or women for no more reason that they practice it more - nothing to do with intuition, instinct, or having "a more analytical perceptual style" than women or straight men. Gay men simply have more reason and more incentive to get it right more often (hardly rocket science, however you dress it up).

Far more interestingly (or controversially) just what are those clues, signals and pointers that anyone can see if they practice hard enough .......?

[LeCharivari]

First on the list of "clues" has to be "flamboyant" - something usually associated with fem gays, so that even if the untrained eye couldn't identify the "real men" who were gay it was at least possible to identify those who were clearly not straight with some certainty.

Unfortunately, not so easy or so positive - it has obviously become more difficult to separate the flamboyant from the gay with the advent of the metrosexual, the heteropolitan and the emo this century/millenia, but it has been like that for years - certainly as long as I can remember "flamboyant" pop idols, and probably as far back as the codpiece in the 16th century (which I can't quite remember).

Rob Halford of Judas Priest was gay, although he only came out long after he left the band; Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull wasn't gay and neither were Gene Simmons or the "Starchild" Paul Stanley of Kiss, by far the most "flamboyant" of the groups of my teens.

David Bowie and Mick Jagger? Who knows - and, for those fans of their music, who cares?

As Andrew Stone of Pineapple Dance Studios put it (although I can't recall his exact words) " When I walk down the street in America they all think I'm gay, in England they don't know if I'm famous or odd, in Holland they think I'm a pop star and in Denmark they don't notice me at all".

Its a clue - but that's all.

Next clue? "...his feet were twined about each other in a way that just didn't seem, um, masculine.." Is there a "gay" way of crossing your legs?

[Ijustwannateach]

Well, the elements of gaydar you have identified, LCV, REALLY are composed of even more basic things- at the most basic level, simply a cascade of energy exchanged among fuzzy interacting particulates, and the fact of humans and strawberries and brains and attraction and bodily fluids all mere projections onto what is REALLY just physics in action. So neither gaydar NOR people actually exist.

[endure]

Duration of eye-contact and the 'second glance' is my clue for the pot. I'm not sure if they're interacting particulates though

[LeCharivari]

My "clue of choice" too, endure, but doesn't that usually only apply where there is some mutual attraction (and maybe the thought of some fuzzy interaction involving the projection of bodily fluids) rather than as a more general means of identification?