Gaydar

[tombkk]

What IJWT defines as a club, is a discotheque in my vobulary. Yes, Thai discotheques all have these midriff-high tables.

A club and a nightclub is not the same, IMHO. A nightclub (gay or straight) has an inuendo of loose women (or men), smoke, and whiskey. While you can have that in a discotheque, you go to the disco for the dance and to the nightclub for the other things that make out the atmosphere.

A club is a place for members and thus has some exclusivity. Often, you can become a member for an evening. It just means that they screen the customers before they let them in.

A pub is a place where you sit down and have your beer, preferrably draft. Typically with friends, but you can also go alone and meet people, or be your own if you want. It's a Western thing, you won't find places like the Telephone Pub in areas not frequented by Westeners.

Come to think of it, Or-Tor-Kor (does that area still exist?) seem to feature Thai pubs...

Now, what is a bar? In my earlier definition, bar was American English and pub British English for the same thing. In Thailand, a bar seems more associated with the go-go scene, even if it is called "beer bar".

[LeCharivari]

Please do throw in your definition of a pub, while you're at it. This could become very interesting.

Yet another of my "pet hates" is not answering someone-else's question when they are good enough to answer mine, so I was planning on answering this in the thread on bar names where I thought it would be more appropriate, but as Gaydar appears to be becalmed at the moment and I am the topic of choice I'll answer here instead.

Asking for a "definition of a pub" is a bit like asking for a definition of a mouse - they all look the same but different. To me there are two types of "pubs". Firstly, the traditional "local" pub in Britain and Ireland (mine were the Bull and Bush in Hampstead (now officially the Old Bull and Bush), the Flask in Highgate (very convenient if you want to visit Karl Marx) and the Spaniard's Inn near Kenwood (excellent for a ploughman's lunch when walking across the Heath). Secondly the expat "pub" abroad (for example in Thailand) which come under the overall category of "bars" but which are styled to resemble (to a greater or lesser extent) British or Irish pubs, such as Mulligans, Shenanigans, the Robin Hood, etc, as well as those like the Pig and Whistle and Tropical Bert's, which make a gallant but rather less professional attempt to look the part. I would also include places like the Brauhaus, which are styled on German "pub" lines.

I think your separating pubs and bars is a bit like separating mice and mammals - all pubs are bars but not all bars are pubs. "Pubs" in Thailand and outside the UK are just another type of bar: go-go bar, karaoke bar, beer bar, bar beer, pub, etc.

Edited August 24, 2011 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

..... It is now clear that your experience of the gay scene is primarily related to tourist-seeking places, places of prostitution, and generally 'unreal' places where most gay Thais wouldn't be caught dead....

How fortunate I haven't posted about the Holocaust or the Killing Fields recently, or you may have concluded that I was a participant in them rather just informed about them.

I have never been in any of the "pubs" I mentioned previously, but that doesn't mean that I am unaware of their existence or their decor.

Similarly, I have never been in any of the "clubs" I mentioned, in Pattaya or Bangkok - they are what are known as "examples". The "bars" listed? I have been in 3 out of the 6, probably no more than a dozen times in the last 25 years (the last time about 10 years ago). That doesn't mean that I see anything wrong with them or with those who frequent them, or that I didn't enjoy my visits and the company - just that those particular places aren't my personal style.

Actual Thai gay clubs (or straight ones, for that matter) don't typically have the English word 'club' in them (or indeed, a Thai approximation of it). They have tables at about midriff height because most of the clientele will be dancing- your lack of understanding of this shows you have no experience on the actual Thai gay scene.

You are 100% correct - I have "no experience on the actual Thai gay scene" in Bangkok whatsoever - in fact I have little experience of anything in Bangkok as the only time I go there is when I have to go to an embassy or when my partner and I go for a shopping trip to Chatuchak. I don't have anything against big cities and urban clones for those who like that sort of thing, but neither are for me. The idea that these Bangkok "Thai gay clubs" have anything to do with "the actual Thai gay scene" for the vast majority of Thai gays, or that these are places where expats who think they are accepted and can somehow blend in and meet "real" Thais is one I find rather amusing. The actual Thai gay scene is alive and well in all those places where the vast majority of Thais live, from Pak Chom to Khlong Yai and beyond, and Bangkok and Pattaya (clone or commercial) are only a very small and equally "unreal" part of it.

I can only advise those for whom "the actual Thai gay scene" is either " 'sit down, drink, and sing karaoke' type establishments" where you can meet "an older generation" or places with "tables at about midriff height because most of the clientele will be dancing" that they are missing out on a whole garden of delights which they should experience while they still can.

[LeCharivari]

Back to gaydar (if only temporarily).

I wonder if that "instinctive" identification has anything to do with what you can see in the showers or in that all too tight Spandex.

Along with other assorted statistical findings, such as 75% of gay men "sounding" gay to a general audience, gay hair-whorl patterns, and gay white men having comparatively shorter legs, arms and hands, Professor Anthony Bogaert has concluded that gay men are generally better equipped than straight men - 0.33 inches longer and 0.15 of an inch thicker, to be precise.

For the statistically minded, the average was 5.99 vs 6.32 inches long and 4.80 vs 4.95 inches thick (presumably circumference not diameter). Statistics were based on 5,000 men, all self selected, anonymous, and self-measured. Alternative theories are either that gay men are more prone to exaggeration or that they couldn't reach that far or hold the ruler properly because of their short arms and hands.

[Ijustwannateach]

^The reason my and other posters' comments about your club experience is pertinent because you are calling into question someone's experience with gaydar in a club, without apparently knowing much about those places or how they manifest in Thailand.

I'm afraid that there is very little difference between the type of clubs Thais go to for dancing out in the smaller cities and in Bangkok, except that the music is better out there and the clientele is much more mixed rather than mostly gay- I quite enjoy them. There are still midriff-height tables everywhere. Fortunately, gaydar allows us to locate each other. I find the Thais in Bangkok quite real, if a bit jaded sometimes by the scene. Pattaya, on the other hand, is probably the least 'real' place for gay people in the entire nation.

I am not particularly bothered by your materialistic explanation of gaydar, but I don't necessarily think it is the best functional description. As I said, people are 'just' atoms, if you want to go all reductionist- and while I agree with you that it is probably possible for nearly all people to 'learn' gaydar (assuming they had a motivation to do so) I doubt very much whether it can be 'taught' or 'trained' in a 'list of rules' fashion- because of its intuitive nature- not to say that intuition is not materialistic, but that it is much different beast from a conditional laundry list or recipe which can be summarised for some kind of realtime use; in the same way that learning to drive is not memorising an iterated list of instructions. That such things are true does not eliminate the existence either of driving skill or of gaydar as a useful abstraction for the purposes of discussion.

[tombkk]

Pattaya, on the other hand, is probably the least 'real' place for gay people in the entire nation.

Pattaya is not Thailand. In fact, it's another planet.

(I said the same about Las Vegas being another planet, albeit not in a gay context.)

I am not particularly bothered by your materialistic explanation of gaydar, but I don't necessarily think it is the best functional description. As I said, people are 'just' atoms, if you want to go all reductionist- and while I agree with you that it is probably possible for nearly all people to 'learn' gaydar (assuming they had a motivation to do so) I doubt very much whether it can be 'taught' or 'trained' in a 'list of rules' fashion- because of its intuitive nature- not to say that intuition is not materialistic, but that it is much different beast from a conditional laundry list or recipe which can be summarised for some kind of realtime use; in the same way that learning to drive is not memorising an iterated list of instructions. That such things are true does not eliminate the existence either of driving skill or of gaydar as a useful abstraction for the purposes of discussion.

I do think that the gaydar is a culture-dependent gadget. So yes, it needs some adjustment (learning of a new culture) when you move from one country, or continent, to another.

[LeCharivari]

^The reason my and other posters' comments about your club experience is pertinent because you are calling into question someone's experience with gaydar in a club, without apparently knowing much about those places or how they manifest in Thailand.

Sorry, but I have NEVER called into question anyone's experience with gaydar in a club, or anywhere else, or for any other reason.

I can only assume that there is some difference in American English and English English, as in English English calling something into question means to cast doubt on it, to question its accuracy, etc. I have NO doubt that both Tom and Lady Heather knew what they knew, saw what they saw, etc. I have already stated categorically (in Lady H's case) that I was (and am) not questioning where, what or who they saw but was asking HOW they knew or WHY they thought some men were gay (or not gay).

Lady H said that she knew (with apparent certainty) that all pointy shoe wearers were gay because they were either "kissing another man on the lips" or in "a nightclub that is almost exclusively men and considered a gay nightclub". That, apparently, is her gaydar.

jdinasia said that his "personal gaydar took years to reset in Asia" and was based on "subtle clues" that "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". He also pointed out that "People who are not gay may think they have "gaydar" but by definition it is a gay thing".

Tom agreed "absolutely"with jd about his gaydar and said that it was a "feeling"and that he "was utterly confused when (he) first came here, but got a grip over the years", adding that "It may be the duration of the eye contact, it may also be that it is longer because both already feel that there is "something". This, IMHO, has to do with the facial expereission, a slight smile developing when the eye contact is established. Eye contact is not the only thing that makes us recognize each other. There is also something in the way most gays walk, in posture and gesture. This is not an exact science, but often I get a feeling that this guy I just met must be gay. ... it is not the length of the look, it is something in the face or the eyes."

endure's gaydar is based on "Duration of eye-contact and the 'second glance' "..."with 'second glance' only happening when there's attraction." and "that the duration that two gay men make eye contact is slightly longer than if one of them were straight. If they feel attraction then second glance comes into effect" and " that the need to reset your gaydar is to do with the fact that different countries/societies have different default acceptable glance durations"

You (IJWT) said that you "Dunno what I want to say yet" and referred to "significant eye contact" and an "exchange of signals" and "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.", but you appear now to have come to the conclusion that you "doubt very much whether it can be 'taught' or 'trained' in a 'list of rules' fashion- because of its intuitive nature"

My view was that gaydar was not "an intuitive ability at all but is an acquired skill that anyone, gay or straight, male or female, can learn" with enough "experience". That is very different from a "materialistic explanation" of gaydar and has absolutely nothing to do with materialism (the theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality) or being "reductionist", which are philosophical ideas about the nature of reality with no connection to abilities (intuitive or learnt, whichever you consider gaydar to be). I'll be quite happy to explain materialism and reductionism to you further as you seem to be confused about them, but not here as the concepts are as distracting as they are irrelevant.

Edited August 25, 2011 by LeCharivari

[LeCharivari]

I do think that the gaydar is a culture-dependent gadget. So yes, it needs some adjustment (learning of a new culture) when you move from one country, or continent, to another.

Something most of us seem to be agreed on, Tom. Rather like "driving" which also "needs some adjustment (learning of a new culture) when you move from one country, or continent, to another."

I think that "driving" is an excellent analogy to gaydar as they are both acquired skills that need experience and practice if the users are to avoid mistakes and not be a menace to themselves and those around them, which the vast majority of people can acquire regardless of gender or sexual preference but which a few people can never grasp, which usually improve with both practice and instruction, which some people seem naturally (intuitively?) better at than others, and which have very different features from one country or culture to another.

It doesn't seem to fit in with anyone who thinks that gaydar is primarily intuitive in nature, though ....

[LeCharivari]

I'm afraid that there is very little difference between the type of clubs Thais go to for dancing out in the smaller cities and in Bangkok, except that the music is better out there and the clientele is much more mixed rather than mostly gay - I quite enjoy them. There are still midriff-height tables everywhere

We still seem to be talking apples and oranges, as usual - you are confusing "Thai gay clubs" with "the actual Thai gay scene" and you appear to be compounding that by calling into question whether I can know anything about Thai gays just because I don't frequent the type of "Thai gay clubs" that you do.

I am not particularly bothered by the type of clubs Thais go to for dancing out in the smaller cities and in Bangkok, where there are still midriff-height tables everywhere, where most of the clientele will be dancing etc, etc because the idea that these "Thai gay clubs" have anything to do with "the actual Thai gay scene" for the vast majority of Thai gays, or that these are places where expats who think they are accepted and can somehow blend in and meet "real" Thais is one I find rather amusing (I think I said something similar before).

You are talking about a very small number of gay Thais who you appear to imagine represent "the actual Thai gay scene". They don't. They represent a small minority, just as those frequenting gay clubs in San Francisco, London, Amsterdam and other cities (including Pattaya and Bangkok) represent only a very small minority of gays in those countries (regardless of what that same minority may claim).

The vast majority of gay Thais live where the vast majority of Thais live. They don't go to "Thai gay clubs" because there are none, just as the vast majority of Thais don't go to "clubs" either because there are none of those locally (or in their price range) either. They gather with friends at small open "beer bars" or on a mat with friends by the river, on the beach, or near a local mini-mart, or at a friend's house. There may be a karaoke machine of some description which may or may not be working, or just some sort of CD player and TV. There may be some tables, but they certainly won't be "midriff height". There may be some dancing, but there won't be any "dance acts" and it certainly won't bear any relation to anything you may see in American gay clubs. Most of the dancing will be saved for the local "concerts" either in the temple, the village or district hall when its a major holiday, or when someone's getting married, becoming a monk, or someone has died when the "gays", of every degree, can dance and enjoy themselves along with everyone else.

Do I know anything about "Thai gay bars"? No, and I don't pretend to. Do I know anything about the "actual Thai gay scene"? Less than many, I am sure - but apparently considerably more than others.

[LeCharivari]

Pattaya, on the other hand, is probably the least 'real' place for gay people in the entire nation.

Pattaya is not Thailand. In fact, it's another planet.

I don't know and I don't feel in any position to pass judgement. I don't know the entire nation and I am not familiar enough with the tourist-seeking places, places of prostitution, and generally 'unreal' places where most gay Thais wouldn't be caught dead to reach such an informed conclusion. I will gladly leave any such observation to those who apparently have far more experience there than I have.

[Ijustwannateach]

LCV,

I'm sorry, but your obsession over your own inflexible meanings of words is making it unrewarding to have a colloquial dialogue with you. Hope you find someone else interested.

[tombkk]

I do think that the gaydar is a culture-dependent gadget. So yes, it needs some adjustment (learning of a new culture) when you move from one country, or continent, to another.

Something most of us seem to be agreed on, Tom. Rather like "driving" which also "needs some adjustment (learning of a new culture) when you move from one country, or continent, to another."

I think that "driving" is an excellent analogy to gaydar as they are both acquired skills that need experience and practice if the users are to avoid mistakes and not be a menace to themselves and those around them, which the vast majority of people can acquire regardless of gender or sexual preference but which a few people can never grasp, which usually improve with both practice and instruction, which some people seem naturally (intuitively?) better at than others, and which have very different features from one country or culture to another.

It doesn't seem to fit in with anyone who thinks that gaydar is primarily intuitive in nature, though ....

No, I wouldn't compare it to driving. Rather to learning languages: There is an intuitive part to it, and a skill that can be learned.

[tombkk]

Pattaya, on the other hand, is probably the least 'real' place for gay people in the entire nation.

Pattaya is not Thailand. In fact, it's another planet.

I don't know and I don't feel in any position to pass judgement. I don't know the entire nation and I am not familiar enough with the tourist-seeking places, places of prostitution, and generally 'unreal' places where most gay Thais wouldn't be caught dead to reach such an informed conclusion. I will gladly leave any such observation to those who apparently have far more experience there than I have.

Please do us all a favour and don't reply if you feel you know nothing about it.

Your posts about "I know better how Thai gays are" has actually nothing to do with the subject, with is a very interesting one: Gaydar. I wish to discuss Gaydar, let's stop this "I know Thais better than you". If you want, you can open a new thread about this, what say?

[sbk]

Curious, back to the subject at hand, you seem to be defining gaydar as rather more than just the ability to spot a gay man but the ability to sense there is a mutual attraction, which to me tbh, isn't what gaydar (or straightdar as I call it between straights) is defined as.

[tombkk]

Curious, back to the subject at hand, you seem to be defining gaydar as rather more than just the ability to spot a gay man but the ability to sense there is a mutual attraction, which to me tbh, isn't what gaydar (or straightdar as I call it between straights) is defined as.

Gaydar is about detecting gay men amidst a sea of straight men. There may or may not be mutual attraction. Tonight at dinner, there was attraction but (unfortunately) not a mutual one. Nevertheless, I do believe that the guy at the next table did realize that I found him attractive. I also think that no straight people in the restaurant noticed anything.

Also, I can often detect gay men without them even noticing me at all. So, mutual attraction does not play any role whatsover.

And no, this thread is not about "straightdar", whatever that may be.

[Ijustwannateach]

^I agree with your perception of the way the experience of it plays out. I am somewhat straight-looking as well, or so I've been told, and sometimes when I notice someone showing me attention I feel they are trying extra hard to make sure that they're not barking up the wrong tree, even in an openly gay setting.

I think there is an intuitive step beyond gaydar which informs about the person and what kind of connections you might develop with him/her, and if both people are doing this at the same time they might stumble across their mutual attraction and make self-conscious reference to it by flirting. For a gay man, I think some 'gaydar' style awareness is necessary for this level of connection but possibly not sufficient. In any case, I have used my own 'gaydar' to pick out whether a large number of people were gay, and certainly not ALL of them were attracted to me (if only) and a sizeable number of them were not my cup of tea, either!

I also think that the openness to connection, through which gaydar is one thing operating, often presets what kind of response you will get. It is surprising at one level how many people (whether in Thailand or elsewhere) will swear up and down that the ONLY type of man available in Environment A is one with problems X, Y and Z; when another person in the same environment may find that an amazingly inaccurate statement and may have never met a man of that sort. It is such a common phenomenon that I suspect that some mutual human intuitive work does a lot of filtering for us before we even begin to realise our interests in those around us, removing the types under our blindspots before we have even really 'seen' them.

I imagine that when gaydar is working properly, it is an expression of the promotion of certain types (the gay guys) through the same kind of system.

[sbk]

Curious, back to the subject at hand, you seem to be defining gaydar as rather more than just the ability to spot a gay man but the ability to sense there is a mutual attraction, which to me tbh, isn't what gaydar (or straightdar as I call it between straights) is defined as.

Gaydar is about detecting gay men amidst a sea of straight men. There may or may not be mutual attraction. Tonight at dinner, there was attraction but (unfortunately) not a mutual one. Nevertheless, I do believe that the guy at the next table did realize that I found him attractive. I also think that no straight people in the restaurant noticed anything.

Also, I can often detect gay men without them even noticing me at all. So, mutual attraction does not play any role whatsover.

And no, this thread is not about "straightdar", whatever that may be.

Wow thats a totally uncalled for response, I don't see anywhere I was trying to make it that way but simply trying to find a definition since nearly all posts discussing gaydar have been about mutual attraction and not about simple detection.

[tombkk]

Curious, back to the subject at hand, you seem to be defining gaydar as rather more than just the ability to spot a gay man but the ability to sense there is a mutual attraction, which to me tbh, isn't what gaydar (or straightdar as I call it between straights) is defined as.

Gaydar is about detecting gay men amidst a sea of straight men. There may or may not be mutual attraction. Tonight at dinner, there was attraction but (unfortunately) not a mutual one. Nevertheless, I do believe that the guy at the next table did realize that I found him attractive. I also think that no straight people in the restaurant noticed anything.

Also, I can often detect gay men without them even noticing me at all. So, mutual attraction does not play any role whatsover.

And no, this thread is not about "straightdar", whatever that may be.

Wow thats a totally uncalled for response, I don't see anywhere I was trying to make it that way but simply trying to find a definition since nearly all posts discussing gaydar have been about mutual attraction and not about simple detection.

This is not the way I understand Gaydar. I think I explained that. Mutual attraction is a lucky stroke, but Gaydar means detecting gay men. Of course, all IMHO. Certainly I can detect gays who I am not attracted to, and the question of this threat is: Why is that so? What makes us tell gay guys from straight guys while (most) straight people can't?

"Uncalled for?" Did you understand my post as offensive? No such thing was meant, I might be too direct in expressing my opinion though.

[tombkk]

I think there is an intuitive step beyond gaydar which informs about the person and what kind of connections you might develop with him/her, and if both people are doing this at the same time they might stumble across their mutual attraction and make self-conscious reference to it by flirting. For a gay man, I think some 'gaydar' style awareness is necessary for this level of connection but possibly not sufficient. In any case, I have used my own 'gaydar' to pick out whether a large number of people were gay, and certainly not ALL of them were attracted to me (if only) and a sizeable number of them were not my cup of tea, either!

Thank you, this is what I was trying to say.

I also think that the openness to connection, through which gaydar is one thing operating, often presets what kind of response you will get. It is surprising at one level how many people (whether in Thailand or elsewhere) will swear up and down that the ONLY type of man available in Environment A is one with problems X, Y and Z; when another person in the same environment may find that an amazingly inaccurate statement and may have never met a man of that sort. It is such a common phenomenon that I suspect that some mutual human intuitive work does a lot of filtering for us before we even begin to realise our interests in those around us, removing the types under our blindspots before we have even really 'seen' them.

I imagine that when gaydar is working properly, it is an expression of the promotion of certain types (the gay guys) through the same kind of system.

I don't quite understand what you mean with this analogy. It sounds like all men in a gay environment have the same problem, that of being gay. Firstly, I don't think being gay is a problem, and secondly, I believe we are talking about the "general environment", not a gay environment.

I am sure I didn't get your point and misinterpreted your words. Kindly enlighten me.

[LeCharivari]

Your posts about "I know better how Thai gays are" has actually nothing to do with the subject, with is a very interesting one: Gaydar. I wish to discuss Gaydar, let's stop this "I know Thais better than you". If you want, you can open a new thread about this, what say?

I "say" that I don't claim to "know better how Thai gays are" or to "know Thais better than you" (or anyone else). What I was saying was simply that one person's idea of what constitutes a "Thai gay club" was not representative of "the actual Thai gay scene".

I, also, would like to discuss gaydar here rather than anything else, but you can hardly point the finger at me for taking the thread astray:

I am intrigued as to your differentiation between a bar and a club. I am looking forward to reading your reply to IJWT. Please do throw in your definition of a pub, while you're at it. This could become very interesting.

Let me ask you one question: Where do you live? (I'm not asking for your full address; the province will suffice.)

[LeCharivari]

Curious, back to the subject at hand, you seem to be defining gaydar as rather more than just the ability to spot a gay man but the ability to sense there is a mutual attraction, which to me tbh, isn't what gaydar (or straightdar as I call it between straights) is defined as.

I don't think that gaydar can, by definition, be "rather more than just the ability to spot a gay man" as that is all it is defined as.

What I am saying, and what most posters here seem to be saying even if that is not their intention is that when put into practice rather than theorised about there is little intuitive about it, there is no reason (apart from a lack of interest) why anyone should not be equally skilled at it (gay or straight, male or female), and that it is nothing more than the first two stages of Desmond Morris' 12 stages of the human sequence of animal courtship patterns.

Of course its easy for gays (or anyone else who wants to) to pick out some people who are gay. Lady H's "kissing another man on the lips" would seem pretty conclusive (except in certain cultures), for example, as would some other traits. Tom, for example, said that "There is also something in the way most gays walk, in posture and gesture." Personally I think this is a very superficial view which is becoming rapidly outdated as a generalisation about "most gays", as more and more straight people are becoming metrosexual, heteropolitan, emo, or even what I have called "flamboyant"and what some would call "fem" and at the same time more and more gay men are happy not to be muscle marys, clones or "real men" but just to be what they are - perfectly "normal" in all they do except for their sex lives.

What I find amusing (partly because I am one of them) are the number of gays who think they are unusual because "most people think I'm straight" or "I am somewhat straight-looking as well, or so I've been told". If this forum is anything to go by, only other people look gay!

The reality is probably far simpler than some gay people would like to admit and the signs are very much simpler - when I was "gaydared" in Hong Kong, for example, I had no idea why (after all, "most people think I'm straight") but I was told later that it was probably down to my pale yellow Hugo Boss sweater which, unknown to me, was a "gay" sweater. That might not have made for a positive ID any more than pointy shoes (where this thread started!), but maybe it was enough to "turn on" the gaydar so that it could be confirmed later by a "second glance".

endure talked about "Duration of eye-contact and the 'second glance' "..." with 'second glance' only happening when there's attraction." and "that the duration that two gay men make eye contact is slightly longer than if one of them were straight. If they feel attraction then second glance comes into effect". Tom talked about "It may be the duration of the eye contact, it may also be that it is longer because both already feel that there is "something". This, IMHO, has to do with the facial expereission, a slight smile developing when the eye contact is established... it is not the length of the look, it is something in the face or the eyes. IJWT talked about "significant eye contact". When I was "gaydared" (the only time I knowingly have been) I recalled that "A young Chinese man's eyes met mine very briefly".

Enter Desmond Morris (talking about straight attraction, but there seems to be no difference at all amongst gays, and a curious similarity to "gaydar"):

Stage 1. Eye to Body. ... look at people from a distance .... in a fraction of a second sum up the physical qualities ... sex, size, shape, age, colouring, status, mood, ... a grading from extreme attractiveness to extreme repulsiveness. If the signs indicate that the individual in view is an attractive member of the opposite sex, then we are ready to move on to the next phase n the sequence.

Stage 2. Eye to Eye. ... From time to time ... our eyes meet, and when this happens the usual reactio is to look away quickly and break eye contact. ... two strangers normally watch one another in turn, rather than simultaneously. If, then, one finds the other attractive, he or she might add a slight smile to the next meeting of glances. If the response is returned, so is the smile, and further more intimate contact may ensue. If the response is not returned, a blank lok in reply to a friendly smile will usually stop any further development.

Apart from the obviously identifiable signs (Hugo Boss sweaters, pointy shoes, kissing lips, etc), all of which are only pointers and some of which are considerably more conclusive than others, it all seems to boil down to that "eye contact" and how long it lasts - and personally I don't see it lasting any longer than normal unless there is some sort of attraction. Why would I want to maintain eye contact with someone just because the only thing we might have in common was being gay?

[LeCharivari]

I can often detect gay men without them even noticing me at all. So, mutual attraction does not play any role whatsover.

I come back to the original question I posed another poster, which indirectly gave rise to this entire thread:

"What makes you so sure they are all gay?"

With no confirmation you are just assuming that they are, and assuming that you know because you are gay, rather as one poster assumed that "pointy shoe = gay and usually flamboyant Thai" when two posters who actually knew some pointy shoe wearers knew that many weren't.

... the question of this threat is: Why is that so? What makes us tell gay guys from straight guys while (most) straight people can't? ...

What makes you so sure that we can (apart from the ones that we are attracted to)?

...and what makes you so sure that most straight people can't?

I know that we have been asked to "proceed on a 'giving the benefit of the doubt' basis" but in this thread, at least, doing that makes this whole thread completely pointless.

[Ijustwannateach]

Tom, I wanted to thank you for your reminder to keep the thread on topic. SBK, I don't think he meant to be rude, just direct. I wrote a long response to you in the same vein earlier but it got eaten by a bad connection; now I'm trying again.

I think it's worth pointing out what a 'straightdar' might be and why one PROBABLY doesn't exist in English-speaking society, anyway. Many straight people don't know that the context of a gaydar is from a background, even for most people living in liberal societies today, where it has never been entirely safe simply to be out and it is understood that everyone knows your situation. Even among a liberal mixed group, the presumption is still 'straight until declared gay.' Gaydar developed, in its most extreme environment, in places where people could be murdered or physically brutalised for coming out or making a pass at someone. It was a survival social skill so that even under the oppressive silence, people could find each other. There are societies where people are still so sexually repressed that expression of ANY kind is forbidden (super-strict Islamic and Christian areas come to mind) and in that case I can see the need for a 'straightdar' too, but this would not be the common need for most English-speaking straight people.

Tom, you were right to say that paragraph of mine was confusing. Let me try again.

I think that when people connect using the social intuitive ability that is also harnessed for gaydar, that they are sending information out about themselves, too. And I think this information is very honest. It may even contain information about desires and preferences that the person himself doesn't know he has consciously. As a result, they only connect with people are receptive to such desires.

Some people, because of unfortunate life experiences or family, have dysfunctional desires. They want people who are not physically or emotionally available to them, or who are dishonest, moneygrubbing, immature, risky, unreliable, abusive, or dangerous. When they reach out to connect, they will express these desires as a part of their projection of their selves (which also shows that they are gay). I think that this creates a 'filtering' effect which prevents people from meeting a wider range of types. For people who are very trapped in these subconscious desires, it may seem as if everywhere they go, whatever they do, they run into nothing but similar types. That leads to the irrational conclusion that 'all these people here in (Thailand, Bangkok, Vancouver, etc.) are the same, which is the kind of thing you often hear from people with bad patterns of relationships. That conclusion is irrational because the place is just a place- there must be all kinds of people in Bangkok just like there are in every city. But if the patterns repeat often enough, the world of that person will not include those people, and it is because of this discriminatory effect in their intuitive connections with others, skewing their gaydar towards the types they have always sought.

If this problem is bad enough, such people will even give up on trying new places because they cannot manage a different type of connection.

The solution to this is probably extensive therapy and self-exploration; I find it fascinating because it is part of what makes people's use of their gaydar and results they get from it so different. What is sad is that those with the negative recurring patterns are unwilling or unable to see this as coming from themselves and externalise the problem. There's a lot of projection of this type going on even among the more functional expats I've met here.

I hope that I've clarified what I said a little, and though it is a bit of a tangent on gaydar, I still think it is related.

[LeCharivari]

Many straight people don't know that the context of a gaydar is from a background, even for most people living in liberal societies today, where it has never been entirely safe simply to be out and it is understood that everyone knows your situation. ..... Gaydar developed, in its most extreme environment, in places where people could be murdered or physically brutalised for coming out or making a pass at someone. It was a survival social skill so that even under the oppressive silence, people could find each other. ...

Many gay people don’t know that either! The idea that gaydar developed as some sort of gay telepathic secret handshake that could enable gays to remain undetected by their persecutors while they could positively identify each other is an interesting one, but the success of the “pretty police” in the UK in the 60’s and 70’s and in the US more recently seems to show that not only are straights able to detect even “straight looking” gays very effectively but that they are able to fool gays’ gaydar completely.

Gaydar as a concept seems very much a Western (American?) idea that appeared at a time when research into “gay identifiers” was developing but it seems to still be stuck in the days when gay = fem and so fem = gay, basing identification on little more than easily identifiable fem traits (walk, posture, speech, gestures, mannerisms, etc) rather than anything more scientific (hair whorls, fingerprints, finger length, penis length, vowel length, etc) or anything more accurate (if there is anything, which I doubt). The problem with gaydar is that times have changed and the metrosexual set have adopted and even exaggerated all those same traits themselves so that its no longer possible to identify gays with any degree of certainty at all just because they pluck their eyebrows, wax their “crack and sack”, wear pointy shoes, or even go to apparently gay bars with their “lady friends”.

Fem doesn’t mean gay any more (if it ever did) any more than lesbian means Dykes on Bikes or women with sensible shoes, and neither does gay mean fem to most of us. Unfortunately in the US where homophobia is apparently a genuine electoral issue, looking at the participants in the recent spate of “gay weddings” in the US it looks as if the old stereotype still rings true and that the old perception of gay=fem=gay still exists in most Americans minds and that the gays most Americans see simply confirm that perception as reality.

What I find a little strange is how so many of those you see in "Pride" parades in the US look stereotypically gay, while so many of those in the UK just look perfectly "normal". On the other hand, no-one seemed to notice that Anthony Blunt and Guy Burgess were gay, so who knows ....?

[chrisyork]

What I find a little strange is how so many of those you see in "Pride" parades in the US look stereotypically gay, while so many of those in the UK just look perfectly "normal". On the other hand, no-one seemed to notice that Anthony Blunt and Guy Burgess were gay, so who knows ....?

I think that's really quite peceptive. There's clearly a cultural thing at work there in addition to any innate sexuality. A bit like the difference between function and presentation. For me Gaydar is about spotting the function - "can I get sex with this person?" - and is quite different to the next question, which is "do I fancy this person". Intrigueingly, the answer to the second question seems to vary for me according to how horny I'm feeling, whereas the results from the first seem pretty consistant.

As to how to spot a Gay Thai, well the first question still works for me regardless. The cultural clues required to help make the second question work well are undoubtedly very different in Thailand, though. You could characterise the USA stereotype described above as being overt advertising, with the UK version being overt conformity. Thailand strikes me as being completely relaxed, neither advertising nor repressing.

Observations like the pointy shoes discussion earlier, strike me as simply a fashion spreading amongst a group of freinds and followers - I think that's how things get started in the Gay community and are picked up later by the staright?

Chris

[tombkk]

What I find a little strange is how so many of those you see in "Pride" parades in the US look stereotypically gay, while so many of those in the UK just look perfectly "normal". On the other hand, no-one seemed to notice that Anthony Blunt and Guy Burgess were gay, so who knows ....?

I think that's really quite peceptive. There's clearly a cultural thing at work there in addition to any innate sexuality. A bit like the difference between function and presentation. For me Gaydar is about spotting the function - "can I get sex with this person?" - and is quite different to the next question, which is "do I fancy this person". Intrigueingly, the answer to the second question seems to vary for me according to how horny I'm feeling, whereas the results from the first seem pretty consistant.

As to how to spot a Gay Thai, well the first question still works for me regardless. The cultural clues required to help make the second question work well are undoubtedly very different in Thailand, though. You could characterise the USA stereotype described above as being overt advertising, with the UK version being overt conformity. Thailand strikes me as being completely relaxed, neither advertising nor repressing.

Observations like the pointy shoes discussion earlier, strike me as simply a fashion spreading amongst a group of freinds and followers - I think that's how things get started in the Gay community and are picked up later by the staright?

Chris

I like your two-step questions and will watch myself accordingly. You may have a point.

As of the pointy shoes, I agree it's a fashion statement. It may or may not have been the gays that started it, and it may or may not be gays that are wearing them now.

[endure]

It's my personal opinion that pointy shoes are an abomination and I'm sure The Lord would have worked an extra verse into Leviticus if they'd been around when he wrote the Bible.

[tombkk]

It's my personal opinion that pointy shoes are an abomination and I'm sure The Lord would have worked an extra verse into Leviticus if they'd been around when he wrote the Bible.

I have no doubt about it.

In addition, anybody who wears those shoes nowadays should be required to carry a weapons' licence.

[LeCharivari]

It's my personal opinion that pointy shoes are an abomination and I'm sure The Lord would have worked an extra verse into Leviticus if they'd been around when he wrote the Bible.

Maybe someone did - but remember that the Lord didn't actually write the Bible himself at all, despite what some people like to think.

[endure]

It's my personal opinion that pointy shoes are an abomination and I'm sure The Lord would have worked an extra verse into Leviticus if they'd been around when he wrote the Bible.

Maybe someone did - but remember that the Lord didn't actually write the Bible himself at all, despite what some people like to think.

You mean it was ghost-written?