Fruit is (also) an epithet for a gay man, particularly an effiminate gay man.

The Online Etymology Dictionary reports that this narrow sense was first used in 1935, about the same time "gay" came to mean "homosexual" in American prisons. Conjecturally it derives from the light, sweet, colorful nature of fruit. I'm not sure that Carmen Miranda's definingly campy fruit-laden performance in The Gang's All Here had nothing to do with entrenching the term eight years later. Double negative intended, eds.

Some media examples:

• "All in the Family" (1971)
  Archie Bunker: "I ain't gonna carry that umbrella, Edith, if the guys at work saw me walk in with that, they'd think I've turned into an English fruit."

• Clue (1985)
  Miss Scarlet (to the acting-gay Mr. Green): "A plant? I thought men like you were usually called a fruit."

• 2003 News reports
  Brazilian football star Ronaldo publicly claimed that David Beckham was a "kiwi fruit" for wearing his wife's thong. According to Ronaldo, kiwi fruit is slang for (masculine) homosexual because "they are hairy on the outside, but fruity on the inside".

There is even an entire scene in the movie Zorro, the Gay Blade, as reports come to the alcalde about the recent colorfully-dressed crime spree. The humor is built around the fact that the alcalde and his minions are too stupid to get the hint that Zorro (the gay one) is wearing colors of fruit. "Ahaaa! Two fruit, one flower, and one vegetable...I think he is trying to tell me something!"

Today the term feels dated, underpowered, and more fitting a schoolage bully than an adult. If you were to use this in an attempt to deride an adult gay man, you are more likely to be met with laughter than with tears. Still, it is more media-friendly than the unimaginative alternates fag or faggot, so could conceivably show up in a belabored after-school special about tolerance.

This slang roots many corrollary terms such as fruit fly (a woman who hangs out with gay guys), and fruit loops, which can mean either freedom rings, or the circuits (some) gay men walk while cruising a particular place (such as a bar).

---

Sources

• http://www.etymonline.com/
• http://www.imdb.com/

Kin Altruism and Homosexuality

Caveat: I believe that human sexuality is a rich spectrum, not binarily hetero or homo. When I use the term homosexual in this writeup, I mean individuals exhibiting strictly same-sex sexual behavior. I know it's shorthand, but it makes things smoother in the text. Also, I presume the studies showing a moderate heritability of homosexuality are correct, i.e. that there is some genetic basis for its presence in humans.

Homosexuality presents quite a problem to evolutionary thinking. How could homosexuality have ever survived evolutionary forces to be as common as it today across the world? After all, time was it took a man and a woman to spread genes by making babies. Since same-sex pairings can't make babies, aren't "the gays" a genetic dead end?

(This line of thinking is what led cackling plastic sculpture Dr. Laura Schlessinger to announce that homosexuality is a "biological error", with all of its terrifying Third Reich inferences. But even without the vitriol, the question seems fairly tough at first.)

The short answer is no, because of course it's not that simple.

As Gritchka notes in the above writeup of the general theory of kin altruism, evolution supports preferential behavior towards individuals who share genetic makeup. In his 1978 Pulitzer Prize-winning book On Human Nature, Edward Wilson extended this idea (it was his in the first place, Dawkins just made it more accessible) to posit that while exclusive homosexuality does not directly contribute to the gene pool, the kin altruism of homosexuals has a greater effect than that of heterosexual kin because the homosexuals are unburdened with children of their own, and this compensates. Put another way, your kids are more likely to get more presents on their birthday if you have a gay sibling than a straight one. (That is, of course, if you're on good terms with them and don't call them biological errors.)

Other theorists have elaborated indirect evidence to support the theory:

• Male homosexuals are poor heterosexual mating prospects, and so the fitness costs for not having their own progeny is low.
• They are on average more empathic and nurturing, and therefore more likely to act on their kin altruism.
• Homosexuals tend to be born later rather than earlier in birth order, increasing the likelihood that there would be nieces and nephews around to spoil.

David M. Buss in his 2004 book The Evolution of Desire, cites three problems with the theory.

1. It doesn't account for exclusive homosexual behavior in the first place: why wouldn't it encourage asexuality instead?
2. To be valid, there must be some evidence to indicate that greater empathy translates to specific kin benefit.
3. The kin benefits would have to be quite high to compensate for the loss of direct reproduction.

I'm not an evolutionary scientist, and this last one seems like it would take more statistics that I can muster, but the first two seem easy to address from a layman's point of view.

Why homosexuality rather than asexuality? Because the sexual drive is evolutionarily much older and much more deeply embedded than mammalian communal drives. For this reason it seems that it would be much easier for evolution to tweak sexual drive than to eradicate it. Furthermore, the theory doesn't seek to explain the origin of homosexuality (after all, it appears in thousands of species much older that that arrogant upstart Homo Sapiens Sapiens), just the reasons why it became optimized at a consistent 1%-4% rate across the species.

Why must greater empathy translate to specific benefit? I think this is a straw man argument, because increased empathy is not the lynchpin of the theory. It would still hold true if homosexual kin had the exact same levels of empathy as their heterosexual counterparts, because they are unburdened with children of their own. As long as kin altruism exists, this translates into some gain for the children, and evolution would seek to optimize it.

For his death knell to the theory, Buss cites a cross-sectional study by David Bobrow and Michael Bailey that indicates that modern gay and lesbian kin investment is equal to heterosexual kin investment. But does saying it doesn't work that way now mean it couldn't have been that way in the past? The evolutionary forces that shaped homosexuality in our species may simply no longer pertain. (Just as the evolutionary forces that optimized our spinal column for brachiation don't apply now either, but that's the spine we got. See Gould's spandrel theory.) Modern mobility and the stigmatization of homosexuality have clearly lessened the likelihood, opportunity, and amount of investment in the grand scheme of things.

Seen this way, the recent (circa 1600 CE) Western stigmatization of homosexuality is strangely self-denying. A society truly interested in family values should embrace their gay uncles and lesbian aunts. It should encourage their kin altruism as much as possible. And yet. And yet. And yet.

A review of:

Huebner, David M., PhD, MPH, Gregory M. Rebchook, PhD, and Susan M. Kegeles, PhD. "Experiences of Harrassment,
Discrimination, and Physical Violence Among Young Gay and Bisexual Men." American Journal of Public Health. July 2004. 94.7:1200-3.

[Node your homework]

---

This study, published in the July, 2004 issue (Vol. 94, No. 7), of the peer-reviewed American Journal of Public Health, examined the incidence of anti-gay violence and harrassment toward young (age 18-27) gay and bisexual men, in Albequerque, New Mexico, Phoenix,Arizona, and Austin, Texas. Data was also collected on suicidal ideation among these men. The data were examined with the clear aim of establishing that gay 'bashing' has the potential for significant negative impact on the mental, emotional and physical health of such men.

Thirty-seven percent of the studied men reported experiencing verbal harrassment because of their sexual orientation (1201). But the authors correctly point out, at the same time, that "The associations observed between experiences of mistreatment and markers of psychological distress are subject to a number of interpretations" (Ibid.). This, of course, is always the challenge with converting data into useful information.

The authors propose that mental illness, especially suicidal ideation and low self-esteem, is caused in young gay men by such violence, but, in recognition of the fact that correlation does not equal causation, they point out that it might actually be the reverse; it is quite possible that young men with self-esteem problems are easier targets for violence.

It seems to be the best explanation, though, that there IS a causal relationship, and, moreover, that it is as the authors suspect; I believe that anti-gay rhetoric, harrassment, and violence DO in fact contribute greatly to the mental and emotional maladjustment documented in the study. That view is made appealing (though not proved) by the fact that we have plenty of evidence that self-esteem is affected by external messages, and that anti-gay normative messages are ubiquitous (at least in the United States). It is hardly imaginable that a child could grow up in America without recognizing that 'being gay' is considered an inferior 'choice'.

This article regurgitated in my mind an anger I had abandoned long ago regarding "homosexuality as a choice." Who, pray tell, would choose to be treated the way America treats its gay citizens?

Homosexual behavior is a choice. Homosexual identity is a choice, too. No doubt about it in my mind. But it does not follow from the fact that one can choose to don the "gay" label that any other label was available to fit his reality; nor that heterosexual behavior would be a reasonable option for him. The "choice" involved was "Shall I choose a gay identity or some other identity of my choosing"?

Anti-gay violence serves to beat self-identified homosexuals into wearing a specific different label: the "normal, heterosexual" label. In most cases, that label won't fit their reality. And in ALL cases, it's unconscionable to even suggest that one has a better understanding of what label a person should wear than that person himself does.

And even in the impossible-to-imagine world in which it would be OK to impose sexual-identity labels on others (which is, as I've said, what anti-gay violence does), it would still be unconscionable to effect this end through violence.

An American stereotype of men as more emotionally 'stable' than women makes 'variability'—or, more precisely, pitch range—a significant cue to stereotyped perceptions of men's speech.

- Gaudio, Rudolf P. & Stanford University. "Sounding Gay:
Pitch Properties in the Speech of Gay and Straight Men." American Speech
69.1 (1994): pp30-56. (Quote from p.36).

---

It is not uncommon for people to think that they can determine the sexual orientation identity of a man by simply listening to his voice. And if the findings of the scientific experiment conducted by Rudolf P. Gaudio are reliable, it is not uncommon for people to be right about their assessments.

Gaudio designed a controlled, scientific experiment, in which he recorded the voices of male participants speaking, including reading the same passages from several books of varying subject matter. The participants were asked about their sexual orientation identities, and this information was documented. Gaudio then played these recordings to listener-volunteers, and these volunteers filled out evaluation sheets, rating each voice they heard, on a scale of 1 to 7, against the following dichotomies:

• straight vs. gay
• effeminate vs. masculine
• reserved vs. emotional
• affected vs. ordinary

As it turns out, most people were able to tell the difference between gay and straight men by their voices alone. But explaining why this is so isn't as simple.

Since the article is published in an academic speech journal, the author of the paper, Gaudio,* is presumably an expert on hearing and speech. Gaudio's analysis focuses on pitch and range as potential subconscious data sources allowing for distinguishing gay voices from straight ones. An apparent expert on pitch, Gaudio's project is to see if pitch or range alone correlate with what a 'gay' voice is.

As it turns out, the results on that point were inconclusive. But the study revealed something else that was interesting. Concluding that pitch and range are not enough alone to explain the subjects' exhibited pattern of correctly picking out the voices of the gay confederates, Gaudio nonetheless points out that his data does support pitch playing a role in the matter.

More interestingly, he points out that (what I'll call) 'pitch context' is an even stronger clue as to what's going on when people can guess sexual orientation identity by phonological clues. One of the passages that was read by the confederate participants was a passage from an accounting text, while the others were more emotional passages, including a dramatic play. It was in the context of the unemotional accounting text that the gay speakers were most identifiably 'gay' to the subjects who listened to their voices.

Exactly what this means, Gaudio won't speculate on, probably because he hasn't formulated a strong hypothesis worthy of mentioning in an academic journal. Personally, I'll speculate that this interesting clue might be explained by a tendency in gay speech surrounding emphasis.

Lastly, I'd like to mention, gratefully, that Gaudio does not attempt to speculatively explain why gay speech exhibits identifiable patterns. I say that I am grateful because attempting to do so would sidetrack the goal of progress; the academic world does not need any more garbage surrounding the 'nature vs. nurture debate.' Now, don't get me wrong; it's not a useless thing to discuss. It's just that academia is already saturated with reiterations of the same tired arguments in favor of one or the other, and now, as has become more popular recently, favoring a mixture of the two. If a researcher has some new profound insight about the debate, it would be great to read about it. But we already have enough speculation, and it is refreshing to see that Gaudio resisted the temptation to tell us something for which he has no evidence.

It is overall an academically sound, well-written piece, with plenty of data, and a straightforward, scientific tone. The sole criticism I have of the experiment is that his sample size was too small to make any magnifiable conclusions, with only 16 speaker-subjects and 13 listener-subjects. Funding is probably to blame for that.

- Z Shihab

---

* Is it not a bit delightful that an audio expert would be named Gaudio?

Node your homework.

Eat And Be Merrie: A Tasty E2 Bakesale Fundraiser

   

That old holiday time of the year is nearly upon us again. Yes, another year has rolled around and whether you call it Yule, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, “The Holidays”, or some other name I’ve left out, ‘twill soon be the season for Feasting and making Merrie!

It’s also the season for giving, and what more worthy recipient than our favorite home away from home? How about if you give and get something in return? Something good to eat made by one of the many talented E2 cooks? Or take an opportunity to show off those famous cooking skillz?

Here’s the deal: around this time of the year, a lot of us start cooking and baking up lots of holiday goodies. Some of those goodies have found their way into the first-evar E2 Holiday Bakesale.

To grab one or more of these goodies, just make a donation to the E2 Donation Box. For each donation of $10 (or more), you can choose one item from the list. Send a copy of the confirmation e-mail to joeryahoocom@yahoo.com with your choice!

Don’t delay! These goodies will go fast (and you want to have time for ‘em to arrive in time for holiday Merrie-making).

The Bakesale closes December 12 (Sunday)< /strong>. In response to requests, the Sale will be open through December 18, so ACT NOW, shoppers! This should leave ample time for shipping so as to ensure prompt arrival to the salivatin' recipients!

Hungry yet? Here’s what we have in the shop so far . . .

• From me:
• One holiday fruitcake, soaked in rum. GONE - thanks, tokki!
• One holiday fruitcake, now soaked in rum. GONE - thanks, Bender!

• yclept, that noder who knows how to spin yarn and spin a yarn, has been busy! She’s offering up:
• 1 batch pine nut macaroons (what an interesting idea …). ALL GONE to tokki as well!
• 1 batch brown sugar/pecan shortbread, from the Silver Palate cookbook. ALL GONE - thanks, smileloki!
• 1 simply large panettone (simply wonderful!) GONE, maxClimb swooped in on this one. Thanks!

• Andromache01, from our Spain office, will ship these to wherever you are:
• one batch of (can you believe this) Frangelico chocolate chunk almond cookies, and
• one batch shortbread cookies of DOOM!

• The divine smileloki will be offering:
• two batches of divinity, peppermint or pecan, according to purchaser's preference! How can you resist?

• This just in! exceptinsects is cookin' up:
• one batch of PRIZEWINNING sand tarts (crisp sugar cookies with cinnamon sugar and an almond on top)
• one batch hazelnut chocolate chip cookies!

• WOOT! Chiisuta's just brought in:
• three two batches of her famous Sex Brownies! Get 'em while you can! (Can only be shipped within the US) One batch goes to Kit as part of her tithe to E2!

• There's noders concoctin' up good stuff down in the Lone Star state:
• Dann's baking a loaf of Parmesan Asiago Basil Wheat bread (oooo ....).
• and Indigoe will make two batches of her Oatmeal Chocolate Chip cookies. GONE, karrenlouise says these'll set her up for life!

• ch'i-lin has just come out of the kitchen with:
• One batch of Scottish shortbread
• and one batch of homemade caramels. ALL GONE to the lovely exceptinsects!

• And here comes karrenlouise with:
• One batch of "my grandmother's stunningly calorific rocky road (and I don't mean ice cream, I mean chocolate with nuts and marshmallows)." Oooh!

• Just under the wire comes oakling with:
• Truffles! Homemade Truffles! Lavender chocolate or mint chocolate or chocolate lemon cheesecake ones! GONE, again to Kit, the lavender chocolate variety, please!