June 26, 2012

Gay Peter Pan-ism, part 34586: More boyish builds

My realtalk buddy and I got onto throwing out some dead giveaways that a guy is queer, things that are clear once you've seen enough of them, but that might not be obvious to the average person. He said a very narrow waist and hips, without realizing that what he really meant was a boy's proportions instead of an adolescent's or a man's.

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.


  1. I think that gays have, in average, big incomes than straights (and probably low tax deductions), then they probably will also pay more taxes.

  2. most addicts seem really masculine to me...

  3. My WHR is 0.8 since I am skinny but have wide hip bones - I guess I would make a decent chick but a poor queer. It is annoying because men's belts are not designed to look good on someone with that kind of figure.

    Speaking of belts, I've noticed that the models in men's clothing catalogs seem to be closer to a 1.0 ratio than the 0.9 women describe as ideal. I wonder if this is a subtle sign of gay influence on fashion.

  4. Agnostic, can your theory explain their other strange traits?

    For example, they hold their wrists in a strange way and move them in a distinctive odd manner. Then there's gayface and that gay way of speaking.

  5. "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."

    Well, I find the prospect of a "gay dystopia" unrealistic. The nature of evolution means that humanity will always self-correct, barring an alien invasion or psychotic robots.

    The question right now is to stay in America or go to somewhere else. You think Americans have it in them to turn the tide?

  6. When do you think there will be funding for this type of research? Being bisexual is really annoying.

    This is not a joke. I'm completely serious, I really want to know.

  7. "Speaking of belts, I've noticed that the models in men's clothing catalogs seem to be closer to a 1.0 ratio than the 0.9 women describe as ideal. I wonder if this is a subtle sign of gay influence on fashion."

    Probably -- you don't get to be a fashion model without making a good impression on gays.

    "can your theory explain their other strange traits?"

    If you search the blog for "Peter Pan," some of those might pop up. I know I wrote about the gay breathy voice before. I'm not sure what makes a face gay, just that people can detect who is and isn't at better than chance rates.

    Another one is kicking their heels against the ground when they're pacing around. Only children do that, like they're bored and are looking for something fun to do.

  8. "Probably -- you don't get to be a fashion model without making a good impression on gays."

    Well, women also find "boyish women" less threatening, so they prefer looking at pictures of those women.

    Here's a link that might be interesting:
    "Transgendered Parade otherwise known as the Victoria's lingerie show"


  9. I want there to be more gays so as to leave more womens for me, but for some reason it doesn't seem to work out this way.

  10. I'm not trolling here. When will their funding for this research? Can you give a rough estimate?

  11. This post is right. Gay stunted maturity has little to do with feminization. Gays have less nurturing instinct than women since they are males. What can be evidenced is that gays pretty much act like children. They also throw tantrums if you don't satisfy their every demand.

  12. Miguel, all the reporting I've read is that gays have lower incomes on average. Maybe we hear disproportionately about big gay political donors while the mode is to work in some poorer paying feminized occupation. Gays stereotypically are into the arts, which for the most part isn't very renumerative.

  13. Regarding gay incomes, I think the reason gays get the reputation as big political donors is that they usually don't have the expense of raising children, so it's not like they have anything better to do with the money.

  14. I'd add to your discussion of neotony a more general comment--that whether it's the voice or the mannerisms, the behavior is like children in that it's not modulated--it's hyperbolic.

    Even if the voice isn't breathy or lispy, gay men adopt an affectation in their delivery in one way or the other. It's like that of kids or your greatgrandmother.

    Even their niceness is hyperbolic, just like that of the child who decides he likes you and is going to be your best friend.

  15. "gay men adopt an affectation in their delivery in one way or the other."

    Let me correct my use of the word "affectation." I don't know in the case of many that their delivery is an affectation, since I've no way of knowing if it's been consciously adopted by them or not, but it's exaggerated when compared to straight men and women.

    The same goes for butch lesbians.

  16. I've known quite a few fat gay men and teens.

    I guess because of that, if I had to guess, I'd say the study that showed no difference in body type between gays and straights was the one on target.

  17. Yo agnostic,

    You made a list of feminisation vs infantilisation traits a few years ago (considering whether moderns were feminised or infantilised compared to the ancients).


    Why not test that out?

  18. agnostic,

    Check this out -


    This useful graphic is good for distinguishing between the different types of paedomorphosis. What you describe sounds most like postformation rather than anything else.

  19. Of course, interest in clothes and other increased aesthetic interests in gays, that's not really childish, is it? A emotionally 8 year old boy with adult sexuality and IQ would be obsessed with sports, cars, cool monsters, not er... nice dresses and fine food and music. You could say gays just opt out of competitive sports in favor of gyms and things - still having the child's need for exercise and activity, but not actually being competitive with adult men, but that doesn't seem descriptively true.

  20. Also,

    wrt waist-to-hip ratio, this paper might serve as a useful reference -


    whr, amongst males, falls from around 1 to 0.87 by age 8, then to 0.83 by age 18 (they fall a bit more during adolescence then rise again at the end of adolescence).

  21. Also, (after about a 30 sec google) inductivist has some direct data on gay vs straight whr from his blog:


    "Using MIDUS data, I lumped together homosexuals and bisexuals, giving me 53 gay men and 45 lesbians. I then calculated waist-to-hip ratios for everyone:

    Mean waist-to-hip ratio

    Straight men .97
    Gay men .95
    Straight women .85
    Lesbians .88

    Compared to gay guys, straight men have more tubular (masculine) bodies, while among women, lesbians have the more straight-up-and-down shape. "

    Besides the fact that these are high ratios, things do not look good for the idea of the straight boded gay.

    Of course, the gays in that sample are less fat (lower bmi), so perhaps their relatively curvier builds compared to the straight men is an artifact of their relative slenderness?

  22. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-lyon/the-cult-of-gay-masculinity_b_1631713.html


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."