All the Good Men Are Gay / Analysis - TV Trop

Contents:

• WHY ARE ALL THE GOOD GUYS ALWAYS TAKEN, GAY, DEAD, OR AVAILABLE?
• ALL STEREOTYP ARE TE, EXCEPT ... V: 'ALL EXTREMELY HANDSOME MEN ARE GAY'
• WHY ARE ALL THE GOOD GUYS GAY?
• ALL THE OPENLY GAY MALE CELEBS WHO ARE OUT, PROUD & SMOK’ HOT

WHY ARE ALL THE GOOD GUYS ALWAYS TAKEN, GAY, DEAD, OR AVAILABLE?

And here’s the thg: When you fally do e across one of the good guys out there, why do always turn out that he’s eher taken, gay, ad, or available? Why do you always fall for the married, gay, sgle, straight, alive, ad, bisexual, imagary, atose, extant, or extra-dimensnal guys?!

The last ne kd, charismatic guys whom I’ve been terted have been, orr, gay, married, 10 months old, created 1968 by Hanna-Barbera Productns and voiced by Daws Butler, still livg wh his mother, sgle and open to datg, a wtern lowland gorilla, gay aga, and a marble bt of Juli about tratg! Another mon stereotype about physil appearance is that extremely handsome men are likely to be homosexual.

In one experiment, women rate pictur of men as more attractive if they thought that the men were homosexual than if they thought that they were heterosexual, while men do not exhib the same tenncy judgg the attractivens of women.

ALL STEREOTYP ARE TE, EXCEPT ... V: 'ALL EXTREMELY HANDSOME MEN ARE GAY'

Extremely handsome celebri, such as Tom Cise, have long been dogged wh mors of beg gay all their reers. Are extremely handsome men really more likely to be gay?

From an evolutnary psychologil perspective, do not make sense for extremely handsome men to be gay. ) High-qualy gen of extremely handsome men will, therefore, be “wasted” if their rriers are exclively or predomantly homosexual. Consistent wh the evolutnary psychologil logic, turns out that extremely handsome men are not more likely to be gay.

Compared to other men, extremely handsome men are often least homosexual, and homosexual men are least physilly attractive.

WHY ARE ALL THE GOOD GUYS GAY?

In ntrast, there are some herable physil tras that mak evolutnary sense to be associated wh homosexualy.

So short men have relatively ls to lose, reproductively speakg, by beg exclively or predomantly homosexual. While exclive homosexualy n never have any reproductive payoff, relative loss fns terms (what the enomists ll the opportuny sts) is ls if the men are expected to be ls succsful heterosexual reproductn. ) The evolutnary psychologil logic th suggts that taller women have relatively ls to lose, reproductively speakg, by beg exclively or predomantly homosexual.

ALL THE OPENLY GAY MALE CELEBS WHO ARE OUT, PROUD & SMOK’ HOT

Once aga, nsistent wh the evolutnary psychologil logic, turns out that shorter men are more likely to be homosexual than taller men, and homosexual men are shorter than heterosexual men.

Siarly, taller women are more likely to be homosexual than shorter women, and homosexual women are taller than heterosexual women.

Such is the power of the evolutnary psychologil imagatn: It n predict who’s more likely to be gay even the absence of a stereotype. We know that at least male homosexualy is strongly geilly fluenced. But a strong geic fluence on sexual orientatn is not nsistent wh the fdgs that those who are ls likely to be reproductively succsful (ugly men, short men, and tall women) are more likely to be homosexual, bee the gen for homosexualy n e to be associated wh gen for physil appearance or for height.