Talk:Gaydar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Some references, unverified, different takes
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=207269&page=1 http://joeclark.org/soundinggay.html http://www.comm.unt.edu/research/bennett-gaydar.doc [Microsoft Word format] http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Reviews/Psychology%20Perverted%20-%20A%20Response.htm
[edit] Gaydar
Gaydar is also the name of a hugely popular Gay Dating website for men. 'Gaydar Profile' is a term used by gay men for their membership profile on the site. There are other versions of the site including www.gaydargirls.com for lesbian women.
-bill ____________________________
[edit] Gaydar complications
"The idea of gaydar as an ability is also complicated by homomasculinity (gay men exhibiting masculine characteristics) and the rise of the metrosexual."
Can anyone tell me why a citation is needed for this sentence?
It seems like it would be fairly hard to refute that sentence. This article seems to suggest that there is no scientific basis for finding out if someone is gay, which would imply that gaydar is largely based on the ability to identify common homosexual characteristics.
-Homomasculinity: a homosexual man displaying masculine traits that are usually associated with masculine, heterosexual men. This would interfere with "gaydar."
-Metrosexuality: a heterosexual man displaying traits related to aesthetics that are usually associated with homosexual men. This would interfere with "gaydar."
Really, I do not see why a citation should be added. Could anyone tell me? Smooth Nick 12:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Gaydar has nothing to do with appearance, as the scientific studies cited in the article have mentioned. Thus, mentioning "metrosexuals" and other pop culture inventions is unnecessary and trivializes the article. I vote for the removal of that entire paragraph, as it adds nothing substantive to the article.72.78.9.230 (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History of the word Gaydar
Who coined it? When was it first used? Etc.? Berserkerz Crit 11:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Partner"
One thing that makes my gaydar go off is when someone always uses the word "partner" in reference to their significant other as if they are trying to avoid gender specific words such as "girlfriend" or "boyfriend". --Candy-Panda 07:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- There's actually more to it as to how gays use language, but gaydar is about sensing if someone is gay before they ever say anything, as language is used more consciously than all the other signs. Gays (and straight women to whatever large extent there is) can recognize if someone is gay or straight without necessarily having to pay attention to anyone's use of words.
- A comprehensive study on gaydar would include language criteria, but it would be silly to use this as the only way to determine if someone is gay or not, as language is used consciously enough that it becomes rather simple for even the straight people to deduct if anyone knowingly uses wording to [willingly] give away his or her sexuality.
- -Mardus 20:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Viewpoint & Approach: Spiritual versus Secular
I noticed that most of this discussion deals with popular conception, if not a seeming behaviorism and the ideas of symbolic interaction in modern society. There is even a paragraph under "Scientific research" that provides an explanation and arguement for the concept of "gaydar." The converse of that discussion which is currently provided, is one that dables in contemporary popular culture. Some people may think that the word "gaydar" is a funny and popular conception that is sometimes supported by "quack" science. I would suggest adding new perspectives to this topic and discussion from the more traditional perspectives of spirituality, folklore and even cultural anthroplogy. Indeed, the popular coinage of the term "gaydar" is similar to pre-existing ideas. For instance, see the wikipedia topics for "Aura (paranormal)" Some of you may never have thought about looking there, but do realize that this page goes beyond talk about "halos." The page says that "an aura may be held to represent or be composed of 'soul vibrations' or 'chakras,' and may reflect the moods or thoughts of the person it surrounds." These are ancient ideas that are shared by the world’s cultures and religions; and, for sure, they deal with soul and spirituality, but also correlate to sexual energy and communication. As for folklore, I am alluding beyond today's popular culture references, as some of you have referenced popular television episodes on this topic page. See for instance the topic "Terminology of homosexuality," where, among other things, you will see popular words and phrases that have been used as symbolic communication by gays though the ages. This assumes that there has been a subculture among the LGBT community, which contributes to our networking. The fact that it is a phenomenon is no different than explanations for other sub-cultures; so, this should be pointed out, while simultaneously discussing the specific qualities or nuances to this community as compared to others. Finally, the LGBT community has always self-referenced itself within the main culture, as has any minority group. Insiders to the community perhaps realize how other "gays," and so on, take aspects of the main culture and make it their own. This occurs especially in fashion, but also includes symbolic use of language, transmittal of "sexual energies," peculiar social behaviors, interactions and provocations, etc. This phenomenon can be blatant, like dressing in "drag," or subtle, such as choosing certain fashion labels, colors, hairstyles and the wearing of certain accessories. But, it can also be the sensing that someone is looking at you, sexually or not, when you unexpectedly make eye contact. Myself, I have always been curious about this later idea. For instance, being LGBT, sometimes you sense someone looking your way in passing, then make eye contact. But what happens when that person becomes upset and instead retorts with the likes of "what are you looking at... [insert slur word]? This is an idea that may include sexual power, but often times takes on other forces and realizations. In modern society, it is often rationalized, but such intuitive phenomenon has interplayed throughout the ages, perhaps like a sort of riddle and a test of faith..69.109.208.103 (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)DjZ
- All interesting but we need to cite verifiable reliable sources to avoid original research. If you have something that also refers to gaydar in this context then we can look to adding it. Benjiboi 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I realize that, certainly. I am staying with discussion for that reason. I realize how annoying it is when people add things that are not verifiable. These are ideas that I am looking at currently and hopefully I can come up with harder material. However, please do consider the "appoach" or "angle" of which I am referring. For now, what I am really trying to convey to all of you is that you could be overlooking certain ideas and imagination that could otherwise expand your current work, as well as support it in new ways that you have not fathomed. As for you "benjboi," I have seen your work and I am quite impressed. I appreciate your feedback to my discussion, too.69.109.208.103 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)DjZ
- Well, I'll assume that you're impressed is a compliment - lol! Your ideas are certainly valid but until we can something to actually cite we can't do too much with it. I may be wrong but verifiability not truth on this encyclopedia. Benjiboi 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I realize that, certainly. I am staying with discussion for that reason. I realize how annoying it is when people add things that are not verifiable. These are ideas that I am looking at currently and hopefully I can come up with harder material. However, please do consider the "appoach" or "angle" of which I am referring. For now, what I am really trying to convey to all of you is that you could be overlooking certain ideas and imagination that could otherwise expand your current work, as well as support it in new ways that you have not fathomed. As for you "benjboi," I have seen your work and I am quite impressed. I appreciate your feedback to my discussion, too.69.109.208.103 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)DjZ
[edit] Criticism?
The criticism section is awfully thin. When The Onion is your source, that should tell you something. Either expand the criticism to include something relevant and well sourced, or delete it. I get the feeling someone added the criticism section merely as a vehicle for their own personal gripes, as evidenced by the weasel words "some feel..."72.78.9.230 (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
