E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn the absence of prominent “jazz hands,” or obvious rainbow flag toting, many of us have lousy "gaydar." That’s likely because most people don’t really spend much time caring about who’s gay and who’s straight. (And the fact that gay people don't actually walk around with jazz hands.)
Fertile women, on the other hand, or even women who are simply thinking about sex, do care, though they may not know it. In fact, ovulating women may have more accurate gaydar than the rest of us, according to a study in the journal Psychological Science.
When Nicholas Rule of the University of Toronto and colleagues showed a group of heterosexual college women 80 photos of men, 40 of whom were straight and 40 of whom were gay, women who were nearing the most fertile time of their monthly periods were much better at guessing which men were gay. There was no motion or sound. The photos did not differ in expression, attractiveness or facial adornments like the 'stache on the Village People biker.
As Rule explains, past experiments have shown straight men and women all have a bias toward judging men in photos as straight. “This makes sense since straight men outnumber gay men as much as 9:1,” he said. But when women are fertile, they can overcome this bias.
Why? Is it because a man’s sexual orientation becomes more relevant at times when women can get pregnant so they don’t pick a man who will be, reproductively speaking, unavailable? Or is there something about fertility that makes women more attentive to facial cues they miss at other times of the month?
To answer that question, Rule showed straight women 100 photos of lesbians and 100 photos of straight women. While accuracy was greater than random chance, it didn’t matter if the women were fertile or not.
Next, Rule had women read a story of a romantic encounter to induce “mating-related” thoughts (science speak for sex). The women who read the story were much more accurate at guessing a man’s sexual orientation regardless of whether she was fertile or not.
“What we do know is that a mix of women at any given point in their cycles did better when primed to think about mating than when not primed to think about mating,” Rule said.
So it seems male sexual orientation is a more relevant matter for women when they are fertile, and because it’s more relevant they pay attention. I asked Rule if heterosexual women are born with this ability or they learn it. He replied that he thinks he has an answer, but he has just finished a study addressing the issue and since it has not yet been published, he doesn’t want to give it away.
But whether learned or inborn, when female thoughts -- even unconscious thoughts -- turn to mating, women are able to turn down distractions and turn up the cues that say, “Hey there, baby daddy!”
Want more weird health news? Find The Body Odd on Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
What a joke. This is pure chance. This shows that these "scientists" have too much time in their hands. The main point of the study is for women to "detect" potential males available "as reproducers". How then can they explain the lesbian selection by these same women???? Do the same study again and I bet results will sway.
Explain what? What the study found was that it did not matter at what time in the woman's cycle she may have been, there was no difference in their ability to distinguish between straight/lesbian pictures. That was not the case with straight/gay pictures.
This story doesn't even mention that being able to determine whether someone is gay by neutral appearances alone has implications about whether homosexuality is a choice or somehow innate.
It makes sense that a woman would be able to intuit when a man would be sexually inadequate for her or unable to perform.
Sad state of affairs when a major news organization resorts to this type of garbage as news-related :(
But it is interesting, and everyone needs a break from the angst-inducing events going on around us now and then.
And this rates inclusion on msnbc's website? The content of the site keeps getting worse and worse!
Telling straight women apart from lesbians probably has to do with competition.
They should test lesbians for telling straight from gay women and see if timing matters there, if only for comparison.
The biological imperative is a force of nature and seems to facilitate human reproduction in many ways. This is simply another one of those ways. Whether or not this study is 'statistically relevant' IS NOT THE SAME as if it is CLINICALLY RELEVANT. Hopefully, at the time of ovulation (in a better world); females have ALREADY SELECTED their mate on the basis of traits which, in mom-to-be's mind, make him a good copulatory investment. With other large mammals, it's a matter of which alpha male beats the crap out of the others which determines his right to mate with the harem and thus pass on his strengths to his progeny. But we are NOT that sort of large mammal. Although based on how some couples get together and reproduce, it does give one pause as to 'WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?' So the study is inherently flawed. Moreover - most gay fellows I know are not inclined to mate with a female, thereby rendering this study useless and silly. There might be some application, however, in the field of molecular biology/genomic medicine yet to be understood. So let's file it away for a time when the information MIGHT be needed.
It may not be relevant by todays standards, but it is an interesting read. As long as it's not taken as a carved in stone guidepost then who care's. Not everything has to be clinically and scientifically bona fide to be an interesting theory, or just an observation. Sometimes things are interesting just because.
It could be just a left-over from evolution when perhaps it was important to be more sensitive to the male being selected to mate with. Like wisdom teeth.
And there are those out there today, who not wanting a husband necessarily, want a child, may still employ those instincts, albeit unaware.
To the complainers who say this isn't newsworthy: Have you ever looked at the Entertainment "news" section of this website? Compared to almost everything in that section, this story is brilliant.
This is just one of my many, many uncanny abilities.
<.<
>.>
That stat of straightmen/gaymen at 9:1 is inaccurate. I'd say 7:1 to factor in the men who don't admit to being gay or are in total denial.
Brian Alexander must still be quoting Phil Donahue. There are about 19 times as many normal men as there are homosexual men.
It's not really *news* per say, it's part of the "Body Odd" section, if you want real news..you could try clicking somewhere else? ...just saying...
70% of men are either gay or bisexual. they either like men, men and women, or shemales. only 30% strictly only like females.
They have the same 'quality' of science proving ESP, ect and the 'skeptics' debunk it. And this 'gaydar' is accepted as legit.
Here's the thing- humans are subconsciously programed to be able to recognize things like this. We pick our mates based on how they smell, how they appear, what their immune systems are like- these are the people our bodies tell us would be prime for creating offspring with. We can deny this. But it's true even in gay couples. A woman can pick the more likely male to mate with her based on one's appearance. It's easier with scent. But it's the same with men finding women attractive at different levels of ovulation- often finding them less attractive when they're at their least fertile. Truth be told straight men who have lesbian (not bisexual females) friends often will tell you they have no sexual interest in them even if they find them attractive (unless they're just jerks). Gay men and women may have crushes on their straight friends as young adults but when they get older this happens less and less and often have non-romantic/sexual feelings toward the straight people in their lives even if sexuality hasn't been openly identified. GLBT people will be able to tell you who is and who isn't based on simply a feeling and honestly a lot of straight people who understand the subtle differences will as well.
The fact that straight women during ovulation couldn't pick out lesbian females was likely because they weren't looking for potential mates in that imagery.
The human race is smarter than we think we are.
Zeke - I agree, when it comes to first impressions/instincts. The problem is that we often shrug off these 'gut feelings' for reasons poorly understood and then in many cases, align ourselves with the wrong people, DESPITE our initial RED FLAG early warning system. The person who figures out why so many of us go against our 'better judgement', might have the answer to civilization's future health. For instance, why did so many intelligent German leaders who KNEW that Hitler was a bad dude allow him to complete his takeover of Germany? It's an interesting conundrum.