Swagger and Sway
Johnson et al (2007), in three experiments, examine the relationships between body shape, gait, sexuality, and perceived sexuality. They conclude that when the gender of body type (hourglass vs. tubular) and gait (hip-sway vs. shoulder-swagger) conflict, a person is more likely to be perceived as homosexual, and one of their experiments suggests that this perception is likely to be accurate. In one experiment, undergraduates were asked to identify the sexuality from video of actual people on a treadmill, and in another, asked to identify sexuality of computer-generated animations (presumably, these did not have an orientation). Observers were good at identifying the gender of actual walkers, but accuracy in identifying sexual orientation was just above chance for male walkers, and below chance (although not significantly so) for female walkers. Although the walker videos presented to observers were divided evenly between gay and straight walkers, the observers guessed "straight" for most of the men, and more than half of the women.
Johnson begins with the assumption that "people can accurately judge the sexual orientation of others." I, for one, haven't found this to be true -- but bear in mind that I don't think a lot of people can accurately judge the sexual orientation of themselves. Whatever, I'm projecting, but I don't really buy the whole "I knew since I was a kid, but I fought it for 40 years" story. At some point in there, the people who come out in later life thought they were straight. Anyway, that's off the point.
This is another "gay men are like women, and women don't have a sexuality" paper, essentially. One bit I really chuckled over was the assertion that men had to work at walking femininely, but that when women walked masculinely, it was because their body types were more masculine. One of the main arguments of the paper is that "don't ask, don't tell" is pointless because people can spot the Gay. If men are having to work at their Gay Walk, it seems like that's a voluntary signal -- if it exists at all. I'm curious how they got p < .0001 with a 55% Gaydar success rate.
Johnson begins with the assumption that "people can accurately judge the sexual orientation of others." I, for one, haven't found this to be true -- but bear in mind that I don't think a lot of people can accurately judge the sexual orientation of themselves. Whatever, I'm projecting, but I don't really buy the whole "I knew since I was a kid, but I fought it for 40 years" story. At some point in there, the people who come out in later life thought they were straight. Anyway, that's off the point.
This is another "gay men are like women, and women don't have a sexuality" paper, essentially. One bit I really chuckled over was the assertion that men had to work at walking femininely, but that when women walked masculinely, it was because their body types were more masculine. One of the main arguments of the paper is that "don't ask, don't tell" is pointless because people can spot the Gay. If men are having to work at their Gay Walk, it seems like that's a voluntary signal -- if it exists at all. I'm curious how they got p < .0001 with a 55% Gaydar success rate.