Why Does Homosexual People Looks Muscular In Both Gender?

[x-ray peat]

My statement is true: Men have been peacocks for most of human history.

ok, agree to disagree

 

[haidut]

Homosexuals seem to have a high androgen in both men and women.
They looks more dominant and mucular,highly motivated.

Male homosexuals have T level comparable to heterosexual males but their DHT/androsterone levels are much lower. Not sure about females.
The drug finasteride was inspired by studying a group of people with an inborn 5-AR deficiency. As children they are hermaphrodites and when they grow up their T levels are normal so they can get quite muscular but still look and act quite "gay" (no offense meant here). So, some kind of hormonal dysregulation seems to occur either in the womb or early childhood that primes the brain to be either male or female. If there is a mismatch with what the actual physical sex of the person is then this is person is probably going to be either gay or transgender.
Just my 2c.

 

[DavePalumbo]

This is nonsense. Homosexuality in men is associated with a lower muscle mass. Homosexuals are known to take steroids more than heterosexual people because of their sexual preference for masculinity. That is why they look more muscular, but it is unnatural to them. As for female homosexuals, it is obviously because they have high androgen levels which causes them to prefer other women.

What IS interesting is that studies show that homosexuals have lower amounts of aromatization of testosterone to estrogen, and excessive body hair is more common in homosexual men than heterosexual men.

 

[DavePalumbo]

Defining masculine traits? Through most of human history, it was the male who was the peacock and not the female. The idea of a real man not caring about his hair and clothes is quite a recent development.

Nonsense.. Where do you get this nonsense from? You don't understand the gender roles.
Beauty is a female thing. Men are ugly. Why on Earth would any man want to become beautiful?
The only reason masculinized men care about their physical appearance is in order to look more intimidating.

 

[Lucenzo01]

Are you talking about women with chiselled jaws, hard flat chests, low body fat, deep voice, well endowed sexual organs, low 2d:4d ratio? a more masculine woman. There could be a higher chance of them being attracted to feminine men or feminine women but its just speculation.

I have worked in an industry with plenty of gay men and there are both ends of the spectrum with the masculine ones and very feminine ones and with lesbians, the couple dynamic can be observed with the more dominant and submissive one.

With the gay men the dating circle can be competitive they can kind of behave how heterosexual women behave in regards to appearance with fashion, gym, cosmetics and hair from what I have observed.

Very masculine heterosexual men that I know are the salt of the earth types and are very low maintenance, minimalist, functional and think its homosexual to style hair, go to the gym, take any notice of fashion. The kind of men who shave their head not because they are going bald but because its too much flapping around to style hair and grow a beard due to not bothering with shaving not due to a trend. They are too busy down the mines or building a sky scraper or something constructive. They say its all in the eyes, the hair and clothes don't matter.

Your description of the very masculine heterosexual men describes me to a T. Good to know hahaha I have felt an outsider between my fashion-obssesed group of friends.

 

[DavePalumbo]

One odd thing I've noticed about very high androgen HETEROSEXUAL males (they all look like Mike Tyson, regardless of their race) is that they tend to wear strong perfumes like the nightclubbing "cool" guys do.. I wonder why... backwards and bizarre behavior for high androgen heterosexual males but clearly goes thousands of years back.

 

[BibleBeliever]

Most of what I've seen is they are usually very fat, unhealthy, the type that can't walk up a flight of stairs without losing their breathe. I assume they are often social rejects and resort to homosexuality/lesbianism as a result.
Based on what I've seen when protesting at gay parades too. I have seen the reverse, the muscular types, which probably are on steroids as mentioned.
The lesbians are usually the worst; almost all of them were morbidly obese and had very short hair; very loud-mouthed and hostile to men.
This is coming from Canada at least, probably varies by region.

 

[kayumochi]

Nonsense.. Where do you get this nonsense from? You don't understand the gender roles.
Beauty is a female thing. Men are ugly. Why on Earth would any man want to become beautiful?
The only reason masculinized men care about their physical appearance is in order to look more intimidating.

You may want to consider what I actually wrote rather than what you read into what I wrote. Men have historically emulated the peacock or stag in dress - the ‘display’ rituals. I never mentioned "beauty" or "gender roles."

 

[RedStaR]

You may want to consider what I actually wrote rather than what you read into what I wrote. Men have historically emulated the peacock or stag in dress - the ‘display’ rituals. I never mentioned "beauty" or "gender roles."

It's all over the place, and stems from culture and sex ratios a lot of the times.

Interesting discussion that I've had countless times. It seems that gay men have evolved to act as caretakers, in addition to some prenatal hormonal influences.

 

[Makrosky]

I know a lot of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Physically they look exactly the same as heterosexuals. Unless you have statistical evidence for that, this is absolutely non sense. My two cents.

 

[RedStaR]

Nonsense.. Where do you get this nonsense from? You don't understand the gender roles.
Beauty is a female thing. Men are ugly. Why on Earth would any man want to become beautiful?
The only reason masculinized men care about their physical appearance is in order to look more intimidating.

Maybe you should know that it is the male that is beautiful in humans, and across animal species.

You are disillusioned by modern media and makeup. Men are pretty. Men have sex with other men for pleasure, and with women to reproduce. We have less powerful hormonal cycles than women, but the premise exists.

 

[tfcjesse]

Maybe you should know that it is the male that is beautiful in humans, and across animal species.

You are disillusioned by modern media and makeup. Men are pretty. Men have sex with other men for pleasure, and with women to reproduce. We have less powerful hormonal cycles than women, but the premise exists.

 

[DavePalumbo]

Men are pretty. Men have sex with other men for pleasure, and with women to reproduce. We have less powerful hormonal cycles than women, but the premise exists.

This is not true. Homosexuality in males is caused by lack of masculinization or excessive feminization.
What do high androgen, masculinized societies do? They execute homosexuals. Look at the Arabic world, look at Ghetto communities, whether African-American ghettos, Arabic ghettos in Europe, Caucasian ghettos. All of them kill homosexual men.
A high androgen, masculinized society would never allow same-sex anything, whether between women or men.

 

[RedStaR]

This is not true. Homosexuality in males is caused by lack of masculinization or excessive feminization.
What do high androgen, masculinized societies do? They execute homosexuals. Look at the Arabic world, look at Ghetto communities, whether African-American ghettos, Arabic ghettos in Europe, Caucasian ghettos. All of them kill homosexual men.
A high androgen, masculinized society would never allow same-sex anything, whether between women or men.

There are other highly masculinized societies that openly had sex with other men, and even adolescent boys. It's cultural.

Biologically, it is not caused by lack of masculinization, nor excessive feminization. The problem with this thinking is that you cannot easily define masculinity, and scientific studies are largely inconclusive to my knowledge as what causes homosexuality apart from the genetic disposition.

To reiterate my previous argument. Males are the aesthetic race in humans, and in almost every other species. Only relatively recently have women (in some phenotypes) have started to develop sexually competitive traits.

 

[Stramonium]

I know a lot of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Physically they look exactly the same as heterosexuals. Unless you have statistical evidence for that, this is absolutely non sense. My two cents.

I agree, this thread seems a bit biased. As a gay men I know they come in all shape and sizes and I also notice we are more keen to take care about our appearance than heterosexual males. I heard gay men had higher levels of Progesterone? not sure about that

 

[DavePalumbo]

It is not true that you can't tell a gay man from a heterosexual man. There are studies on the differences in facial characteristics. The nose and forehead is longer in homosexual men. The eyes are closer to each other. The jaw (from the lower lip to the chin) is shorter. The area from the end of the nose and to the upper lip is also shorter. Gay men tend to have enlarged upper lips.
Gay men more often have "lordosis" of the lower back, which is what women have for mating so if they bend over the **** sticks up and the back curves downwards; it's seen in all female animals but is absent in universally all hetero men. This lordosis is estrogen dependent.
Lordosis behavior - Wikipedia
Gay men tend to think like women (there are HUGE differences in how women and men think) which is why an overwhelming majority of gay men are "progressive" or new-liberal, whereas an overwhelming majority of heterosexual men lean conservative.

There ARE some bizarre facts regarding homosexual males, such as that they tend to have more hairy bodies, tend to have less body fat, tend to more often have frontal balding, tend to have enlarged prostates and so on, which is not what you would expect if homosexuality was caused by excessive estrogen, progesterone or whatever it is (or maybe that IS what you would expect).

 

[Kyle M]

To reiterate my previous argument. Males are the aesthetic race in humans, and in almost every other species. Only relatively recently have women (in some phenotypes) have started to develop sexually competitive traits.

Seems to me that "peacocking" males are present in birds, reptiles, and other animals with similar resource acquisition between the sexes. The higher mammals and predators seem less male-peacocky, and for humans the vast difference in resource acquisition between males and females seems like the sexual characteristic that substituted for peacocking. Rather than grow "expensive" tissues, human males exhibit expensive resources like cars and houses and Rolex watches, or just a plain big bank account. The women, however, stick to their secondary sexual characteristics as the main source of attractiveness to a mate.

So male peacocking is not through the physical body anymore, which is opposed to your aesthetics point. How is a human male body more designed to attract females than vice versa? And we know males are more visual any way in mate selection, which wouldn't be the case if they were not supposed to respond to visual cues of fitness and the females were.

 

[x-ray peat]

It's all over the place, and stems from culture and sex ratios a lot of the times.

Interesting discussion that I've had countless times. It seems that gay men have evolved to act as caretakers, in addition to some prenatal hormonal influences.

Biologically speaking, how exactly does a homosexual person evolve and pass down their new traits to new generations? I would argue that people in general are devolving due to environmental toxins etc

 

[RedStaR]

Seems to me that "peacocking" males are present in birds, reptiles, and other animals with similar resource acquisition between the sexes. The higher mammals and predators seem less male-peacocky, and for humans the vast difference in resource acquisition between males and females seems like the sexual characteristic that substituted for peacocking. Rather than grow "expensive" tissues, human males exhibit expensive resources like cars and houses and Rolex watches, or just a plain big bank account. The women, however, stick to their secondary sexual characteristics as the main source of attractiveness to a mate.

So male peacocking is not through the physical body anymore, which is opposed to your aesthetics point. How is a human male body more designed to attract females than vice versa? And we know males are more visual any way in mate selection, which wouldn't be the case if they were not supposed to respond to visual cues of fitness and the females were.

There are so many wrong things in this post. I would rather not delve deep into the topic as I have done this before on separate occasions, and frankly, it is too daunting as opposed to just posting a single study like in most cases.

I'm sure this sounds pretentious, but for that reason, I encourage you to take what I've said for granted.

Biologically speaking, how exactly does a homosexual person evolve and pass down their new traits to new generations? I would argue that people in general are devolving due to environmental toxins etc

Great question. Gay men have 80% fewer children, but it has been recently believed to be an epigenetics and gene methylation issue, similar to naturally adjusting soldier and worker ant ratios. The gene(s) for homosexuality is possibly more widespread than you could imagine on the X-chromosome, but the triggers (or lottery) for activating dormant genes are likely complex and on-demand basis. Homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom and is as old as time in humans.

 

[Kyle M]

How many gay men have you spent time with in real life, and to what extent? As in, intimate friendship, short or longterm professional, acquaintance, etc.?