Only pre-pubescent children have waist-to-hip ratios around 1.0 (that is, each being equal length). Men don't have hourglass figures like women, but they are closer to 0.9 (slightly in the hourglass direction), rather than 1.0 like a bean-pole. And 0.9 is the ideally attractive male ratio, as judged by females.
That would totally fit my reduction of all gay weirdness to two principles: 1) having the mind of an addict, and 2) Peter Pan-ism, being stuck in a child-like state mentally. Well, why not stuck in childhood physically?
Unfortunately, there are no studies of waist-to-hip ratios in homo and heterosexual men. So there's a free study for anyone who wants to get published. But this guy sounded pretty certain about it, and it sounds about right to me. They do have boyishly narrow hips.
Luckily, though, there have been many studies that looked at simpler measure like height, weight, and BMI. Overall it does appear that gays are more physically developmentally stunted than normals. I'll skip reading them and doing a full lit review, and instead copy the key findings of some recent large studies.
From Bogaert (2010). Physical development and sexual orientation in men and women: an analysis of NATSAL-2000.
Results indicated that gay/bisexual men were significantly shorter and lighter than heterosexual men. There were no significant differences between lesbians and heterosexual women in height, weight, and age of puberty. The results add to literature suggesting that, relative to heterosexual men, gay/bisexual men may have different patterns of growth and development because of early biological influences (e.g., exposure to atypical levels of androgens prenatally).
These size differences show up even at birth. From Frisch & Zdravkovic (2010). Body size at birth and same-sex marriage in young adulthood.
For same-sex married men, birth year-adjusted mean weight (-72 g, p = .03), length (-0.3 cm, p = .04), and BMI (-0.1 kg/m(2), p = .09) at birth were lower than for other Danish men. Same-sex marriage rates were increased in men of short birth length (IRR = 1.45; 95% CI = 1.01-2.08, for < or =50 vs. 51-52 cm), although not uniformly so (p (trend) = .16).
Of course they don't always find these results, but from skimming through a "previous research" section, none have found the opposite result -- that gays are taller, heavier, or bulkier. A recent national, representative study in Britain found no differences. From Bogaert & Friesen (2001). Sexual orientation and height, weight, and age of puberty: new tests from a British national probability sample.
Men with same-sex inclinations (particularly bisexuals) had an earlier first sexual experience relative to heterosexual men (approx. 3 months). Homosexual men did not significantly differ from heterosexual men in height or in weight, although there was some evidence that bisexual men were taller than heterosexual men (approx. 1 cm). The results challenge some prior research on sexual orientation and physical development using nonrepresentative samples.
I have no idea whether all these many studies use the same measure of homosexuality (e.g., preference or behavior, only once or regularly, etc.). And I can't say which study looks like it was done the best. I just don't care enough about this topic to dive in. Still, the take-home seems to be that queers are shorter, lighter, and slimmer than normal men, and that this may be apparent even at birth.
Sadly but predictably, all of the discussion in this literature is about pre-natal exposure to hormones, bodily feminization, and so on. It's not feminization -- gays have no nurturing instinct, most obviously -- but rather infantilization. Since females are more neotenous than males, it accidentally looks like gay deviance is a case of feminization. Really, though, it's a syndrome of infantilizing traits. A study on waist-to-hip ratios would be a good test between the two -- feminization says more like an hourglass, infantilization says more like a bean-pole.
I don't think they pursue those ideas out of political correctness -- it's hardly PC to call gays a bunch of girly men. It's just an internal academic thing, where hormones and digit ratios and all that are just sexy topics du jour, so why not work gayness in there as well?
They need to stop looking at hormones in the womb that could put gays toward the female side of the male-female dimorphism spectrum. Instead they need to work on how a Gay Germ (in Greg Cochran's theory) could injure the young brain so that it matures incredibly slowly, including harming areas of the brain responsible for releasing signals that tell the body to grow to a certain size at a certain time.
How that results in homosexuality, who knows? Perhaps finding girls yucky is another case of Peter Pan-ism. I know, finding girls yucky doesn't mean wanting to go out and suck a dude's cock, but I'm just talking about who they're into. They obviously do not get stunted in sexual maturity -- if anything, they mature earlier. The pathogen leaves that part of the brain alone. So what you end up with is a hypersexual 8 year-old boy who thinks girls are gross. From that, most of gay deviance follows.
Well, add in their addictive tendencies, too, but I'm starting to think that some or all could be subsumed under Peter Pan-ism. Small children have much more addictive personalities than grown-ups, after all, from the cravings to the temper-tantrums thrown if it's taken away or they don't get it to begin with. Just imagine if an 8 year-old boy could get his hands on party drugs -- it's no wonder that substance abuse is endemic among faggots.
Yeah yeah, another victimless crime. But we're still going to have to pay for their fucked-up behavior, not just financially as tax-payers picking up the check for health care etc., but also as friends or neighbors or co-workers who become collateral damage from the sewer-drain explosion of My Spectacular Alternative Lifestyle.