October 9, 2013

Gay Peter Pan-isms: Pointing

Lately I've noticed something uniquely juvenile about gay behavior from having to stand in line near them at fast food places. When they're discussing what they're going to order, they have a tendency to point at the menu. They do this also when telling the cashier what they want to order. And when they point, they hold their arm straight out, and for a lingering stretch of time.

I didn't know what to make of this at first, only that it was something that normal men and women hardly ever do. And if normal people point, they usually keep their arm bent at the elbow and hold their arm closer to their body, while pointing for a split-second. It's kind of an after-thought gesture for normal people. With queers, it's like they're seriously trying to direct your attention to whatever they're pointing straight at, as though you couldn't already tell.

Even more strangely, they're pointing at something that is close by, where eye direction and verbal description should be sufficient to signal the other person what the queer is attending to. Pointing is redundant. Adolescents and adults typically point when the object is way off in the distance, when determining exactly what bearing and distance can be tricky by just looking at the person's eyes.


Why is this faggot pointing at something not even 3 feet away? And that he's staring directly at? And commenting on with language? ("Seriously, is this like the hottest set of robot lips you've ever seen or what?") Notice how extended his arm is; he's employing it to direct attention.

Then I remembered Michael Tomasello's work on human vs. other primate communication, where he argues that our communication began with gesture, including pointing. Our close primate relatives point, but they don't have language. And more relevant here, children begin pointing earlier than they have a decent grasp of language, around 1 year old. It's their way of communicating to others what the object of their attention or focus is, before they can do so with symbolic words.


Children use eye direction to signal what they're interested in as early as infancy, like this kid is. Pointing for children is not a substitute for eye direction but for linguistic commentary. Your partner won't or can't always look at your eyes to see what you're looking at, so you'll need some other way to point it out. Actual pointing gets the job done, but is pretty crude -- again, think of trying to direct your partner's attention to an object situated some ways away, from pointing alone. It's much easier when you can use words -- "See the elk on the very left side of the herd? It looks like it's limping, so we should attack that one first." Using your arm and finger to point just won't achieve the same precision and resolution from far away. It takes time to acquire language, though, so children make do with pointing in the meantime.

Pointing is considered rude in so many cultures for a variety of reasons, but a key factor is that it just looks so damn immature. Teaching your kids "good manners" is partly to get them to respect local norms, and partly to get them to act like a grown-up would in any culture. Even by adolescence, normal people don't generally go around pointing at things. "Don't point -- say it instead."

Male preferential homosexuality reflects an arresting or at least a severe slowing down of psychological development in childhood, most obviously shown by the fact that faggots find all pussy repulsive. When exactly it strikes is not clear, though, and by looking over as many examples of their stuntedness as possible, we can narrow it down.

Since pointing emerges around 1 year old, it must strike after that age. This is confirmed by the lack of a season-of-birth effect. I don't know when pointing rapidly leaves the kid's repertoire of everyday communication, but no later than puberty. Children still rely heavily on pointing even at age 3 or 4, when their linguistic skills are still pretty weak -- at least, they don't command large enough of a vocabulary that could "point" to objects with higher resolution than arm-and-finger pointing.

This example is also valuable because it allows a direct test of the other main framework for viewing gay behavior -- namely, that they are feminized. Yet grown-up women don't point very much, let alone with their arm fully extended, when it's already perfectly clear from eye direction and language what they're attending to. On the other hand, pre-pubescent girls are no different from pre-pubescent boys in relying on pointing, especially at earlier stages such as the toddler years. Gays resemble small children of either sex more than they do male or female adolescents or adults.

Women are more neotenous than men, so for most examples these two frameworks have the same prediction. The handful of cases where they make different predictions, though, it always goes in favor of the infantilization model. The other, most important, glaringly obvious, and highly politically relevant case is marriage and raising a family -- gays have no interest in those things, particularly not in "being a mommy" to little babies. There they are more like immature children rather than adolescent or adult women (or men, who have their own form of wanting to marry and raise children).

20 comments:

  1. You've got a good eye for this stuff. I'd never noticed that gays point more than normal people, but now that you've mentioned it, yes, they certainly do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Off-topic, but there's a new book out, "The Summer of 1927". About the social environment of the time. I don't know if you'd be interested in that or not, but maybe its a sign of things to come.

    -Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sounds cool. Have you read "Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s"? It was written in '31, kind of like a book on the '80s would've been if written in '90 or '91.

    Lots more pop culture stuff included too. That's very tough to uncover if you weren't there at the time, so it's neat reading an account by a guest at the party, so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "faggots find all pussy repulsive"
    I thought it was lesbians who were more repulsed by straight sex, while gays think the rest of society should loosen up and be more appreciative of the human body, sexuality, "polymorphous perversity" etc. Which of these is more characteristic?
    Straight woman: "Naked dude, gross"
    Gay guy: "Naked chick, gross"

    On the other hand, I don't know any actual lesbians, if you exclude ex-lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lesbians have often had straight sex, with multiple men, married them, and borne their children, before deciding that men are more trouble than they're worth. So they're not disgusted by men or their sexuality. More of an annoyance or bitterness or something.

    Gays ick out at the very thought of putting it in her "ewww, I can't even say it, y'know her... thingie!" They do get weirded out when they see pussy, like a disgusted little boy whose gut tells him that all girls have cooties.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The haircut on the pointing guy is uniquely gay. Sometime in the past year or year-and-a-half, they started to dump the faux hawk for this neo-Vanilla Ice thing -- shaved back and sides, and a wooshing one-way flow on the top (either to one side with no part, or straight back, or straight up).

    They don't all have that haircut, but no straight guy does, so if you see it, he's queer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. On independence from France, Algeria kicked out the White Europeans. Why doesn't France return the favor by kicking out its Africans?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've got a couple former coworkers who are gays, both of whom first had sex with women. Likely an unrepresentative sample, since one of them is supposedly disgusted by other gays and has some self-hatred (the other is a proud deviant trying to see every film in a list of mainstream cinema with unsimulated sex). But if they were disgusted merely talking about female anatomy, wouldn't that impede the fag-hag phenomena? Goffman's "backstage" setting without an audience one's opposites are apt to bring up the topics one doesn't otherwise discuss.

    I know lesbians have a term, "gold star lesbian" for one who's never been with a man (Suze Orman is one). I'd guess they're a lower fraction than among gays, due to active/passive dynamics. As mentioned, I don't know any of those, just ex-lesbians who stuck with men shortly after graduation. You're right that "annoyance" may be the better term (particularly the sort Steve was writing about recently in the Ivy League).

    ReplyDelete
  9. "But if they were disgusted merely talking about female anatomy, wouldn't that impede the fag-hag phenomena?"

    Fag hags treat their gay BFFs like surrogate children, or kid brothers, which activates their maternal instinct. Ditto for the queer -- he sees her as his surrogate mommy or big sis (the one who, perhaps unlike his real female kinfolk, accepts and loves him, and doesn't judge his screwed up behavior).

    So, the incest taboo keeps him from wondering about her "that way," and keeps her from bringing up such topics in his presence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have an alternate explanation for 'gay pointing.' It seems to me that gays are males who, at some point in their youth, gave up in the struggle for power between males. Young boys establish pecking order by physical aggression (fighting, hitting, etc. -when they are allowed to). Young adolescents figure out verbal aggression-they insult, establish cliques, brag, and so on. By the time adulthood hits, males have pretty much figured out their standing in the pecking order, and can communicate it nonverbally (stance, tone of voice, speaking ability, athletic demeanor, etc). the competition is basically subconscious and immediate.

    Gays, at some point, completely gave up. Boys fight and hit (or, more properly, wrestle, throw balls, etc)? Some just essentially say 'hell with it' and don't participate. This 'hell with it' attitude carries through the rest of male development: gays never develop an aggressive (or domineering) speech pattern, don't participate in the hierarchical chatter (talking about football, bragging, etc); they are so far outside of winning this type of competition, they give up and become anti-men. You can't lose the competition for dominance if you refuse to play.

    But they can still manipulate. I think hand pointing is a form of manipulation. If I say 'look at that hill over there,' you presumably look at it, and we continue with our conversation. If I point at the hill and wait for you to look, I have 'controlled' you: I move my hand, you move your head, the conversation will wait for you to 'do my bidding;' I can manipulate the pace of the conversation, your mannerisms, and so on.

    anon

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Gays, at some point, completely gave up. Boys fight and hit (or, more properly, wrestle, throw balls, etc)? Some just essentially say 'hell with it' and don't participate. This 'hell with it' attitude carries through the rest of male development: gays never develop an aggressive (or domineering) speech pattern, don't participate in the hierarchical chatter (talking about football, bragging, etc); they are so far outside of winning this type of competition, they give up and become anti-men. You can't lose the competition for dominance if you refuse to play."

    Sounds straight out of the PUA manual. Did you experience that, or read about it on a website? Real life "dominance" is more complex.

    " But they can still manipulate. I think hand pointing is a form of manipulation. If I say 'look at that hill over there,' you presumably look at it, and we continue with our conversation. If I point at the hill and wait for you to look, I have 'controlled' you: I move my hand, you move your head, the conversation will wait for you to 'do my bidding;' I can manipulate the pace of the conversation, your mannerisms, and so on."

    No, they are not sophisticated enough. Finger-pointing is more like childish ignorance.

    -Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  12. "gays never develop an aggressive (or domineering) speech pattern"

    On the contrary, Agnostic has argued gays are even more prone to verbal harassment of others.

    Besides an "aggressive speech pattern" is something a Millenial would point to as a sign of "dominance" to be the "alpha male". As opposed to the reality: money, accomplishments, etc.

    -Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  13. Besides an "aggressive speech pattern" is something a Millenial would point to as a sign of "dominance" to be the "alpha male". As opposed to the reality: money, accomplishments, etc.

    Millenials probably actually would see money and accomplishments as dominance, and be more concerned with it (and more likely to work towards it) than previous generations. High inequality = high competitiveness, higher antagonism, high concern with status, everyone's jockeying for a few chances to escape their community and join the elite.

    What they probably would not see as dominance is community respect, while previous generations would. Low outgoingness and connectedness, combined with above trends to competitiveness crushing cohesion. Low social connectedness might make a person likely to see an attribute like "aggressive speech pattern" as essential to being "dominant", rather than focusing on whether this translates into actual respect and then taking a whatever works approach to that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Low social connectedness might make a person likely to see an attribute like "aggressive speech pattern" as essential to being "dominant","

    I don't think that the older generations ever believed this, even in an environment of low social connectedness. It was mostly Millenials.

    Millenials fell for self-help scams because they were out of touch. the same shit showed up in the mid-century - "get women through the power of hypnosis", or "How to Win friends and influence people".

    all kinds of social confidence self-help shows up during falling-crime times. In reality, power dynamics are determined by more substantive factors.

    What do you think, Agnostic? Is everybody in a low crime environment prone to phony posturing?

    -Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  15. "High inequality = high competitiveness, higher antagonism, high concern with status, everyone's jockeying for a few chances to escape their community and join the elite."

    I see where you're coming from, but I disagree somewhat. The 1920s and early Depression, a time of rising equality, were full of far more daring and competition than our modern era. Ever hear of Charles Lindbergh, Babe Ruth, Jay Gatsby, etc.?

    -Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Millenials probably actually would see money and accomplishments as dominance, and be more concerned with it (and more likely to work towards it) than previous generations. High inequality = high competitiveness, higher antagonism, high concern with status, everyone's jockeying for a few chances to escape their community and join the elite."

    They are more concerned with money, but this is not the same thing as being more competitive or more status-conscious. Competition can take place through feats of bravery and skill, and lots of money is not the only way to establish status.

    -Curtis

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm not gay but see now that I have been guilty of gay behavior like pointing. Guess that helps explain some of my social problems.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I see where you're coming from, but I disagree somewhat. The 1920s and early Depression, a time of rising equality, were full of far more daring and competition than our modern era. Ever hear of Charles Lindbergh, Babe Ruth, Jay Gatsby, etc.?

    There could be some overlap, and low vs high may matter as well as whether the trend is falling or rising.

    Survey data indicates kids today certainly relatively rank status higher than their immediately previous generations, if not so far back as the 1900s-1920s generation, and this seems like a progressive trend since the late 1970s-1980s onwards.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Fag hags treat their gay BFFs like surrogate children, or kid brothers, which activates their maternal instinct. Ditto for the queer -- he sees her as his surrogate mommy or big sis (the one who, perhaps unlike his real female kinfolk, accepts and loves him, and doesn't judge his screwed up behavior).

    So, the incest taboo keeps him from wondering about her "that way," and keeps her from bringing up such topics in his presence.


    Are you sure?

    In high school theater, I saw this actor and actress talking together. The man made an off color comment about the woman's (very large) breasts. They were both smiling at each other, but I couldn't figure out what the relationship between them. Today, I recognize at fag and fag and hag.

    On Project Runway, I saw the queer Christian Serrano help a model take off her shirt. They were facing each other, and she was topless and in her underwear.

    Some years ago, there was a todo about supermodel Stephanie Seymour and her gay son. He was touching her in a completely inappropriate way.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=stephanie+seymour+son&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=tARcUoanONO1kQeStYHwAg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=681&dpr=1

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'd say it's more surrogate and allo- than if they were actually raised together in the same household, which causes the strongest incest reaction. Gays generally don't have a good sense of boundaries, so they're not like typical 6 year-old boys either.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."