Why Do Gay Men Sound Gay?

Some gay men really do "sound gay" and to me it doesn't sound feminine as some claim, or like a "lisp" as some put it, it is its own thing. I was reminded of this by the post on the Humor thread of Trump speaking with a gay voice. Distinctively unmistakably gay.Here's an article about someone who made a documentary about it , how gay men try not to sound gay. But I don't think it really explains what it is in the first place and how it comes about.Curious what opinions you all have about it.

Did anybody go listen to that gay voiceover of Trump on the Humor thread? Seems to me you have a tin ear if you don't recognize that as a gay voice. And it was so identified, too. And as I said it doesn't sound feminine to me, it is its own thing. And since it IS recognizable as gay it suggests there really aren't all that many varieties of it as someone here suggested.I can see how you could pick it up by hanging around the gay community but how many acquire it that way? I'd guess not many. And you still have to explain how it developed in the first place.Trying not to sound macho? OK, that's a theory.

Be careful. You could blow an artery spewing all that hatred.

Yes I am just sincerely curious about what brings about the gay pattern of speech. I'm aware that some straight men can sound somewhat gay, and there are certainly gay men who don't have a gay voice. But there IS a gay voice, possibly more than one, and it's interesting to consider how it might have come about. Perhaps it's more an American thing too, since one poster here says it doesn't exist among his Danish and Swedish gay friends.I've watched some of the film "Do I Sound Gay" and may eventually watch the rest of it. [ABE: I watched some more but had to stop when the language got offensive and it actually included pornographic scenes.]I don't have much experience with the gay world but I haven't lived under a rock all my life either. As a Christian I'm maybe less likely than I was before to be in a position to know gays, but interestingly I've had a gay friend for about fifteen years now who I met on the internet at a conservative forum, while my experience before was more at a distance.My gay friend and I aren't always friends, we've had our knock-down-drag-outs but overall we stay in touch and share information about our lives. He's had two life partners, the first died thirty or forty years ago, and the other died about five years ago after a prolonged illness. Now he lives with his two cats. He's seventy-five, two years older than me. I've talked to him on the phone a few times. The first time I thought he had an identifiable but fairly slight gay sound to his voice. More recently that seems to be much less. Wondering why that might be I think it could be because over the last few years he's had a lot of straight people in his life and no contact with the gay community any more. He reconnected with old friends at his high school reunion a few years ago and some of them have become good friends he entertains for long visits at his home, and vice versa.I don’t think I understand what camp is yet, though I gather it has some connection with the theater. My friend is stereotypical in that he loves old movies and particularly the strong actress personalities of the early years of the movies. He met some of his rediscovered friends in high school theater productions.As a child he was closest to his mother and a particular aunt, and though he won’t say anything critical of his father I think he was at least a neglectful and possibly rejecting, maybe even in some sense abusive parent. I’m guessing though because my friend likes to maintain a sort of sentimental view of his parents and childhood that doesn’t completely add up. There seems to be a sort of void instead of a real relationship with his father, while he had a close and colorful relationship with the aunt. I know I’m playing armchair psychoanalyst here but it makes sense that there would have been much female influence and less positive male influence in male gay experience. I’m sure it isn’t always the case but doesn’t it make sense?Thinking of my own experience I think I have a relatively masculine identity for a woman. I know I identified with my father more than my mother because she was not a supportive figure in my life whereas I loved my quiet father unreservedly and he was always supportive and affectionate in his quiet way. I think my identification with my father is why I’m comfortable among all the males here at EvC talking about scientific and political things, and would not be as comfortable at a forum of women talking about domestic concerns. Not that I don’t share their concerns of course, but the relationships are awkward for me whereas EvC despite its antagonistic atmosphere is perhaps oddly more congenial. Yet I haven’t the slightest lesbian inclination at all. We’re all odd in some way or another perhaps.So these are the sorts of things I think about in relation to the psychology of gayness. I could of course discuss it from a theological perspective instead but I’ve already done that to some extent.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nice to share your view of the PC on this thread.But I end up thinking there really is a gay voice even if it isn't exclusively gay and even if there are lots of gays who don't have it. One thing I got out of that film "Do I Sound Gay" is that the speech pattern seems to come mostly from imitating female speech. While nongay men can pick it up just from being more around women than men as children, gay men have a psychological reason besides that for picking it up, and I think it must have something to do with alienation from father and other men for various reasons, and getting your main support coming from mother or other female figures in the family. Creates a love hunger toward the male sex or something like that, which gets sexualized in adolescence. I'm sure there are many variations on how sexual identity develops but that seems like one that stands out in this context.I think even you are into denying the gayness of the pattern in the end too, preferring to describe it as being creative with your voice etc. I think there's a psychological dynamic involved instead.At least that's my current position.

I never said anything remotely like "boys thinking they are women" -- which is an unbelievably brainless idea -- and I have thought about this stuff off and on over the years, accumulating information here and there, AND I have an extensive background in psychology from my pre-Christian life. So your opinion is no better than mine, and since you haven't a clue about mine I feel free to dismiss yours as the usual kneejerk irrelevancy.Again, what this discussion, and particularly that film, contributed to my understanding, is that it's female speech patterns that form the basis of what we identify as gay speech. It doesn't sound feminine to me so I needed the experts to point out the characteristics that identify it as feminine.My idea isn't about single parents or any simple matter of circumstances, it's about quality of relationship, which is pretty clear from the little I said.I think some of my problem with your posts, which I've complained about many times recently, is that you seem to focus on one small element in what I say and ignore the overall context.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What Dr. A said was in fact precisely logical and to the point. You had made the ridiculous equation of gay speech with black men liking watermelon: The point being that the gay speech pattern does describe a lot more gay men than straight men, and since that is the case it is reasonable to think about why and how it comes about, while at least as many white men as black men like watermelon.

Your answer sounds just as brainless as the former answer. NN, I just can't have a conversation with you, you just don't get what I'm saying and your interpretations are ridiculous.,It's all just your assertion against mine anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny the only gay man on the thread is supporting my "bigotry" (observations) over yours.And bigotry is a good word for what you are doing as a matter of fact.As for "stereotypes" the reason they ARE stereotypes is that they have enough truth to them to have come to represent the phenomena in question. They only become bigotry when no other qualifiers are allowed and the term is obviously meant to be pejorative.Your definition that to be an observation rather than a stereotype requires some definable percentage of observation, is just your own prejudice.What I've said about the gay pattern of speech is that I know not all bay man speak that way and that some straight men do. What makes it a valid observation is that it IS known to be characteristic of gay men and even gays recognize it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What research? All NN said was that I was wrong, period.But I ought to be allowed to have my own thoughts about it anyway.

You can leave off the PC "homophobe." My view of homosexuality comes first from my biblical perspective on everything, then from old experiences in psychological thinking, there's nothing about my personality that conditions my opinions, such as the fictional personality disorder PC calls "homophobia."I know there are different life stories and that homosexuality can't be reduced to any particular clearcut cause, but from my own observations, the one I've come up with fits some. I also applied my reasoning to myself as I believe I developed my own sexual identity from conflicted relationships with my parents, particularly my mother. You don't have to take such ideas as intended to be universal but in my opinion there is reason to apply them in some cases.I'm surprised you say it can be a choice because that is one view of it I definitely DON'T have, unless it applies to a less than strong homosexual inclination. There are also situations where the person seems to be born with it, and certainly it's common for it to be apparent in very young children. But it always seems to be something that just happens to a person so I don't think of it as a choice.As for why bring this stuff up, I really wanted to know the various explanations for the gay voice because of the Trump voice on the humor thread, and this thread has been very educational on that topic, so that I now have some idea of what a "camp" voice is, and the believable explanation of the experts in the film that it's based on the female speech pattern which I wouldn't have recognized without their spelling it out.But I think I do have another motive and that is I am probably looking for a way to expose political correctness, and like to make issues out of controversial subjects because I object to their being controversial and object to the PC attempt to shut me up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I used the term Sound Gay as a simple matter of fact.

Relationships in families aren't all that obvious. "Masculine" and "nurturing" are way too broad to begin to get at the subtleties in family relationships, differences in attitude toward different children can be subtle but crucial. Differences in personality make huge differences in relationships. No.Too many studies are politically correct in spite of themselves. If for instance you define a family in broad terms like "masculine" and "nurturing" you aren't going to find out anything worth knowing. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry I'm putting you on the spot and I'm happy to end the conversation.But in my experience the observations people make about family relationships are really really obtuse. If you'd like to stop judging my opinions, I'll stop judging yours.

That's your opinion and I disagree. OK? As a matter of fact I don't recall saying anything about you, let alone psychoanalyzing you. I've been talking in generalities.Also, calling me a hater and a homophobe doesn't give you much credibility in my eyes. Both are lies.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.