ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Bering in Mind

Bering in Mind


A research psychologist's curious look at human behavior
Bering in Mind Home

Why do funny ladies like the ladies? The over-representation of lesbians in comedy

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Recently I noticed a queer pattern—something that appears, for whatever reason, to have eluded serious academic consideration. Jerry Seinfeld might have opened up this can of worms by saying, "Have you ever noticed how female comedy is dominated by lesbians? Not that there’s anything wrong with that."

Not all comediennes, of course, find men as arousing as sidewalk pavement. Sarah Silverman, Elayne Boosler, Joan Rivers and Kathy Griffin, for example, seem to prefer the company of men. But they are crowded out on the roster of female comedy all-stars by a long list of Sapphic wise-girls: Jane Lynch, Ellen Degeneres, Rosie O’Donnell, Judy Gold, Sandra Bernhard, Wanda Sykes (pictured above), Lily Tomlin, Kate Clinton, Paula Poundstone, Carol Leifer, Kathleen Madigan, Margaret Cho …

Now, without reaching for your nearest Google search bar, name a single gay male stand-up. The only one I could come up with is Ant. Who? Sure, there are plenty of gay male comedic writers behind the scenes, and also character actors on comedy sitcoms, but in terms of heavy-hitters in the world of comedy, lesbians put us gay males to shame. (By the way, now you may Google away, which will tell you that Ant is that guy from Last Comic Standing.)

It’s all rather curious indeed, because although there are over four million LGBT Americans, we’re still relatively rare specimens, hovering at around 2-3 percent of the total population. Yet, you wouldn’t know this by crunching the gay numbers among the comediennes’ roster. Although no hard stats are known to exist for the respective orientations of comediennes, the proportion for that group is at least anecdotally much higher. It would be easy enough to brush off this peculiar fact with some casuistic postmodernist explanation, such as saying that disenfranchised groups find empowerment through humor. But if this were the case, then where are all the big-name gay male comedians? For that matter, where are the armies of visually-impaired stand-ups, the rank and file of popular little-people comedians, the overrepresentation of paraplegic humorists with their own HBO comedy specials? Many other stigmatized demographics, after all, outnumber lesbians in the general population.

I’d be misleading you by saying that science has a clear answer to this profound mystery. There is, however, a compelling theory that may or may not help to shed some light. Let me preface this by saying that psychological science deals mainly in terms of statistical probabilities, not proof theorems (individual differences are normal and expected). Still, one of the hottest findings to emerge from contemporary humor research is the fact that while both men and women say that they value a "good sense of humor" in potential partners, the two sexes mean vastly different things by this. Men prefer women who find them funny ("humor receptivity"), not funny women per se ("humor production"). Women display the opposite trend in their dating preferences. These were the basic findings reported in a 2006 issue of Evolution and Human Behavior by psychologist Eric Bressler and his colleagues.

The authors interpret these data, and similar data, by drawing from psychologist Geoffrey Miller’s ideas about the evolution of humor. Miller has argued that ancestral males’ ability to produce entertaining humor demanded a set of heritable cognitive skills, including intelligence and creativity, and thus was a hard-to-fake signal of genetic quality. Due to the sexes’ differential investment in reproduction (just at a coital level alone, about 90 seconds versus 9 months), women would have evolved to be more receptive to signs of genetic quality than males. Men, meanwhile, would have been on the lookout for women who responded positively to their humor.

Researchers who study homosexuality have discovered that the brains of many lesbians were over-exposed to male hormones during prenatal development, influencing not only their adult sexual orientation, but also masculinizing other behavioral and cognitive traits in which there exist innate sex differences. This is not true of all lesbians, but it is especially true for those who exhibit male-typed profiles. So it is not implausible that some lesbians’ courtship strategies would largely mimic opposite-sex-typed patterns, including a differentiated capacity for humor production that attracts female attention. This would not be a conscious strategy, it must be emphasized, and indeed this is what many critics of evolutionary psychology repeatedly fail to realize. So, for heaven’s sake, don’t mistake this as me saying that lesbian comics go on stage just to score chicks. Gene replication is simply a mechanistic means to an end; if it works, it works. Many evolutionary psychologists, including Miller, believe that our minds are often just epiphenomenal interpreters.

It’s noteworthy also that so many successful comediennes are on the "butch" rather than the "femme" side of the scale (this even applies to those who aren’t lesbians, such as Brett Butler, Janeane Garofalo and Whoopi Goldberg), leaving one to wonder how much currency this evolutionarily informed theory of humor may in fact have.

About The Author: Want more Bering in Mind? Follow Jesse on Twitter @JesseBering, visit www.jessebering.com, or friend Jesse on Facebook. Jesse is the author of newly released book, The Belief Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life (W. W. Norton).

 





Rights & Permissions

Comments 35 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. dvaudio 10:08 am 02/26/2011

    I think it’s easy to understand the phenomenon if you consider that humor is another way of venting anger.

    Link to this
  2. 2. c.harvey 10:26 am 02/26/2011

    dvaudio, it’s just the old angry lesbian thing, right? Give me a break.

    Link to this
  3. 3. dvaudio 10:29 am 02/26/2011

    well, look at the cover lady, wanda sykes. I think her humor is disgusting! Truth hurts?

    Link to this
  4. 4. julmaki 11:07 am 02/26/2011

    This seems so obviously cultural to me. It’s not considered ‘feminine’ or ‘lady-like’ to talk bluntly and sometimes vulgarly the way comedians must to elicit laughs. Lesbians have already been questioning and contradicting social norms of femininity, making it FAR easier for them to fit into the comedy domain.

    We need to be careful not to look to evolutionary ‘just so stories’, particularly when there are so obviously other explanations.

    Link to this
  5. 5. gchrist666 11:34 am 02/26/2011

    Consider that gay women are more socially acceptable than gay men. This could account, in part, for the perception that there are more lesbian comics than gay comics in the popular media. Gay men in comedy abound but mainly in gay-oriented venues.

    Link to this
  6. 6. Varla 12:29 pm 02/26/2011

    I’ve always figured that it was because women are generally considered "unfunny", or at least less funny, and it’s seen as unfeminine to be yukking it up like one of the boys. A lesbian, however, has already jumped one hurdle of gender expectation, and a much harder one at that. Maybe being viewed as un-lady-like isn’t so scary after that.

    Link to this
  7. 7. tharriss 1:25 pm 02/26/2011

    Well julmaki, while I agree there are other possibilities, I’m not sure there are "so obviously other explanations" that fit better than the one the author makes.

    I’ve often noticed in social situations over the years that men seem to make the most effort to tell jokes and attempt to get a laugh, and women really do seem to prefer funny guys more often then men care about whether the women they date are funny… none of this seems to relate to whether women feel comfortable being "vulgar" as you suggest. As far as I can tell, real world experience seems to fit well with the suggestions the author is making. Of course that doesn’t prove anything, but it does seem the author raises a decent possibility.

    I find it more interesting that people are more instantly resistant to suggestions that evolution has pre-programmed certain preferences and tendencies in us that then become reflected as "social norms". I guess people don’t like to think that their behavior is enormously influenced by hard-wired "animal instincts", as opposed to being rational choices arrived at independently. So many strongly held opinions/beliefs are held so strongly not because our reasoning leads us to them with a valid objectivity, but because we have evolved to allow group opinions and "in-group" identifications to strongly bias the likelyhood and strengths of our beliefs. We like to think we favor this political party or religion or that ideology because we are rational and have reasoned out the truth, but most people are simply following their evolutionary "animal" programming that tells them to bias their views in favor whichever group they have latched onto (for whatever random reason) initially.

    It takes an intelligent person who has some pratice/training with being objective and rational to have much chance of breaking such predispositions, and a process like the scientific method to help weed out our mistakes and slips in judgement and biases to begin to rise above this hardcoded programming and find objective truths.

    But being well aware of our tendencies to favor our chosen "in groups" and disparage the "out groups" can go a long way to helping find objectivity.

    Just my two cents worth.

    Link to this
  8. 8. mikeorgan1955 2:35 pm 02/26/2011

    What a load of unscientific ill informed twaddle. In what universe does this writer live.
    I don’t want this to sound like an American bashing exercise but it would seem to me that the writers experience is strictly limited to the USA.
    Where can I start? Well for one, in the UK, Australia and New Zealand there are many Guy Comediennes/Comedians. There are many small people representatives in this area as well with particular reference in the UK to comedy writers. Lesbians do not particularly dominate the UK comedy scene but are as representative in that art as in any other.
    Maybe the fact that US humour has an over representation of Lesbian Comediennes has more to say about US culture than it ever does about science. In the UK we have many Indian, Pakistani, Muslim and Chinese as well as other representatives from cultures very different from the UK mainstream. Our experience is that no one has a monopoly on the art of making other people laugh especially with regard to their sexuality or cultural background.
    The sad thing here is this kind of under the table pseudo science is allowed to air in a publication like Scientific American. Maybe that’s why its competitor The New Scientist has a much more respected position in this genre.
    Yes I am angry mainly because this kind of article can only have a detrimental effect on the acceptance of people for what they do and not their sexual or cultural background. If the Author is Gay he should be ashamed of himself, as I am a heterosexual telling him he is spouting homophobic nonsense. Try getting out more and learning about other cultures then maybe your articles will have more science and less opinion.

    Link to this
  9. 9. julmaki 3:18 pm 02/26/2011

    Wow, well that’s hilarious tharris. Because in fact I’m a trained evolutionary scientist who studies HUMAN evolution. I can assure you my Ph.D training has made it such that I have no ‘predisposition against evolutionary thinking’ and ‘lack of rational thinking or the scientific method’. The problem is that non-scientists and scientists alike tend to jump to evolutionary arguments about human behavior that are almost impossible to prove before considering cultural explanations. The ‘real world’ experiences you present are part of the exact same cultural milieu, and such provide absolutely no new evidence regarding the author’s hypothesis.

    Link to this
  10. 10. kevin_malone 3:31 pm 02/26/2011

    Actually, mikeorgan1955, as far as I know Jesse Bering is an American (and yes he has said on numerous occasions he is gay) who has lived in Europe for years. He also runs a "cognition and culture" institute in the UK so your accusations seem pretty idiotic to me. Here’s why.

    First off, Bering himself says that his evolutionary account "may or may not help to shed some light" — it’s a blog, dude, so chill out. It’s an obvious truism that there are a weirdly high percentage of lesbian female comics and his theory seems pretty reasonable to me based on what scientists have discovered about the use of humor in sexual selection. Second, your concern about crosscultural differences is definitely a legit one and I would like to know how much this applies to other cultures also. But Bering himself doesn’t claim any such universals and just because it’s not true in other cultures wouldn’t invalidate his evolutionary theory here anyway. Third, Bering’s point is not that there aren’t any gay male comics and other comics from minority groups but that they are not as successful (which translates to not as funny! in the audience’s estimation) as lesbian comics. Finally, as a gay man myself who greatly appreciates what he has done for the gay community through his progay science writings, accusing Bering of peddling "homophobic nonsense" is like calling MLK a racist.

    Link to this
  11. 11. TulipaAcuminata 3:32 pm 02/26/2011

    This has been noted elsewhere: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA

    Link to this
  12. 12. RogiEqualityRiverstone 4:46 pm 02/26/2011

    Women who are not emotionally, socially or financially dependent on men must be more resourceful, adaptable, quicker, smarter and better able to connect seemingly-incongruent facts together. This makes us witty. Wittiness is perceived as cleverness. Cleverness makes people smile and laugh. It’s not some bogus "over exposure" (WHO decides ths?) of "many" women to testosterone (how many women, compared to how many women who were "over exposed" to estrogen?).

    By the way, some of the entertainers listed as "Lesbians" are not. They’re pansexual or bisexual. When will men stop obsessing with "girl-on-girl action," or, if Queer themselves, try to disappear us from Queer history?

    This article SUCKED! It was like a celeb gossip column! PEE YOU!

    Link to this
  13. 13. c.harvey 4:52 pm 02/26/2011

    "It’s not some bogus "over exposure" (WHO decides ths?) of "many" women to testosterone"

    Umm, scientists studying homosexuality. Did you bother to read the hyperlink?

    By the way, if you’re a lesbian, so not funny. But you’re just an n of 1.

    Link to this
  14. 14. RogiEqualityRiverstone 5:55 pm 02/26/2011

    And maybe Gay men can’t succeed in the business, because it’s run by sexually-insecure, homophobic MEN! DUH!

    Link to this
  15. 15. RogiEqualityRiverstone 5:57 pm 02/26/2011

    well, aren’t you a snot? And, of course, we all know how definitive "psychological" testing has been. Why, just a few years ago, Queers were mentally ill! In fact, Trans people STILL ARE! crimeny!

    Link to this
  16. 16. robert schmidt 7:13 pm 02/26/2011

    To a certain degree one has to look at the work involved in becoming a comedian. A great deal of time on the road and terrible hours. A heterosexual woman looking to have a family before the biological clock winds down is not going to be able to make it. While a homosexual woman with no plans on having children or at least not having them herself is less constrained. A similar question can be made concerning male dancers and homosexuality and I suspect there is a similar dynamic. So, is it in the genes or in the lifestyle? As with most things involving people there is likely no one answer though unfortunately, people prefer for there to be only one answer, black or white. In this case there is only shades of pink.

    Link to this
  17. 17. ConcernedCitizen 9:03 pm 02/26/2011

    This sounds like something I have innately knew and thought for a long time – most women aren’t funny. The explanation by Bressler resonates. Look at any e-dating profile and you will find women looking for a guy who is "tall, dark, handsome …and funny." Guys are looking for girls that are "short, blond, beautiful …and fun." Humor is a competitive dominance. Men practice and culture it, women don’t. Now this still may be isolated to American society, but the difference is apparent.

    Link to this
  18. 18. figleaf 10:25 pm 02/26/2011

    "Miller has argued that ancestral males’ ability to produce entertaining humor demanded a set of heritable cognitive skills, including intelligence and creativity, and thus was a hard-to-fake signal of genetic quality."

    Then Miller was an idiot. Not because it’s implausible, though it is. But because maybe, just maybe, not everything about "reproductive fitness" is about the reproduction part.

    For instance I wonder if… naw… couldn’t possibly be… you could test his hypothesis by assessing whether men are more likely to joke around women (which would help confirm his hypothesis) or around mixed company (which would be the null hypothesis if one wasn’t a sociobiology fetishist) or around other men. Which it seems to me would be at least as effective at helping men defuse tension between rivals, boost morale when things looked bad, enhance camaraderie and thus group bonding, and so on.

    What are the odds that male bonding, morale boosting, and tension defusing might increase men’s likelihood of surviving long enough to be reproductively successful? Oh, right, silly me, the only possible sources of selective pressure in humans were spreading seed and avoiding leopards.

    Similarly, if I was to try and test the "humor receptivity" side of Miller’s hypothesis I might also look to see if more women are found in comedy audiences, whether men and women are equally likely to appreciate other people’s humor, or if men are more likely to listen to and laugh at other men’s jokes.

    And finally, if I was to try and test your "lesbians have little penises inside their brains so they act like men" hypothesis, and maybe backup Miller’s humor-receptivity hypothesis, I might check out the audience composition of women comedians (lesbian and otherwise.) Would we see more women in the audience, equal numbers of men and women, or more men? Remember, if any men at all show for women comedians, or appreciate their senses of humor, that’s going to substantially complicate the "women evolved to laugh at men’s jokes" notion.

    Also, yeah, I guess the first thing people always say about humorists like Jane Austin, Erma Bombeck, Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Lucille Ball, Mae West, Mary Tyler Moore, Christine Lavin, the Roach sisters, Sarah Haskins, etc. is "what a bunch of butch dykes."

    Sheesh, dude.

    figleaf

    Link to this
  19. 19. openeyes999 11:08 pm 02/26/2011

    Jesse raises some interesting questions. However, since evolutionary psychology is almost pure speculation with little scientific merit, I doubt we’ll ever have the answers to these questions. Still, kinda interesting to think about.

    Link to this
  20. 20. mikeorgan1955 11:26 pm 02/26/2011

    First of all you say it’s a blog so chill out but this blog is in a scientific magazine and therefore does not qualify as just another opinion. There are other arenas for that kind of blog

    Second at no point in his article does the author restrict it to the USA

    Third the idea that gay comics are not as humorous as their heterosexual colleagues is just ridiculous . I can sight in the UK Benny Hill (internationally one of the most successful comedians ever), Stephen Fry, Charles hawtrey, Kenneth Williams and more who are some of our most loved and celebrated comedians. Most of these comedians did not push their sexuality and in two cases never admitted to it in their lifetime.

    Forth if a writer uses sexuality as a basis for science without a scrap of evidence to support it other than empirical observation then whether he means too or not is guilty of putting the weapons in the hands of the bigots the rest of us are trying our best to resist. I therefore feel that my accusation of "homophobic nonsense" is justified. This is regardless of the sexuality of the writer.

    It has taken many hundreds of years to start to rid ourselves of the inclination to justify our prejudices based on pseudo science (remember Eugenics was at one time accepted as legitimate) the last thing we need is for scientific publications to give space to this drivel. If you believe in free speech (and I do) there is a place for this kind of article but it is not here.

    So my point is, not that the Author should not make these comments, but that he should be a little bit more responsible in the material he wishes to use in a science magazine and this he has failed to do.

    Link to this
  21. 21. bryonbrit 2:23 am 02/27/2011

    Unfortunately, too many women enjoy male-bashing humor (watch just about any sit-com, men are constantly being insulted and degraded) and most lesbians certainly aren’t fans of men. Not that men don’t enjoy women bashing humor (which is hypocritically often called sexist) – but gay male comedians don’t seem to go in for that style of humor.
    So no surprise that women who don’t care for straight men see such success in this type of situation.

    Link to this
  22. 22. dbtinc 10:10 am 02/27/2011

    OMG what twaddle and prattle – for a moment I flashed back to reading the Inquirer on the checkout line at the supermarket! Please, no more of this.

    Link to this
  23. 23. c.harvey 10:30 am 02/27/2011

    People are so predictable with their "outrage". A lot of lack of humor on the subject of a humor. Another commenter noted that Christopher Hitchens (you tube link below) got the same sh*t firestorm by saying the same things Bering here is. At least Bering poses a reasonable hypothesis! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7izJggqCoA

    Link to this
  24. 24. hotblack 11:08 am 02/27/2011

    This and every other Jesse Bering article in the last couple years has me wondering if he can think or write about anything other than his own sexuality. It’s like every… single… article.

    Link to this
  25. 25. kevin_malone 1:39 pm 02/27/2011

    Well I am gay and read him because of his gay science stuff, that is true. I don’t think your statement is fair however. He writes a lot about sex (and why is that a bad thing?) but very little of it is exclusively gay-oriented if you look over the list of his topics http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/bering-in-mind-blog/

    Link to this
  26. 26. tharriss 3:11 pm 02/27/2011

    Thanks Julmaki, I’m sure you have no personal biases and never would say anything before carefully thinking it through.

    I’m sure I wasn’t clear enough that only the first part of my comment was directly to you..the part that thought your causual dismissal of the arguments in favor of "obviously other" explanations (that aren’t necessarily all that obvious…) Certainly your offered suggestion of women not being comfortable being vulgar, and lesbians being more comfortable about breaking norms didn’t seem anywhere near convincing enough to allow you to summarily dismiss the points in the blog as wrong.

    The second argument I made where I started by saying "I find it more interesting" was meant to be directed at the immediate storm of comments that seemed to me to be knee jerk reactions against an evolutionary explanation of a behavior… that part was not directed specifically at your comments, and can hardly be rebutted simply by your being a "trained evolutionary scientist"… although I will say that I would have thought your "PhD training" (as you put it) might have led you to making a more compelling and thoughtful comment than the one you did. Certainly if you simply wanted to say "I’m a PhD and a trained evolutionary scientist and I would caution against the tendency to put evolutionary causes behind things that might more easily be explained from a cultural standpoint" and perhaps have left out the rather rude and snarky comments overusing the phrase "obviously" to describe things that first of all aren’t obvious and second of all might not even be particularly compelling points.
    At any rate, in spite of your arrogant dismissal of my response and how "hillarious" you found it, I have no beef with you, but perhaps before you wave your PdD in someone’s face, you might consider whether your comments themselves are as valid as you might first assume.

    Link to this
  27. 27. mbrocenos 5:06 pm 02/27/2011

    You should hyperlink "heaven’s sake" in "So, for heaven’s sake, don’t mistake this as me saying that lesbian comics go on stage just to score chicks." to one of your god/religion articles.

    Link to this
  28. 28. ImproperUsername 7:12 pm 03/1/2011

    I assume that there are many gay male comedians but that they simply do not make a big issue of their sexual preferences. I recall seeing two that did make their orientation known during their performances–excuse me, I mean "while on stage."

    Link to this
  29. 29. Yocheved 5:50 pm 03/2/2011

    I have never read such dribble! Its embarassing that it appears in Scientific America. I am a new subscriber, who will think twice about re- subscribing if this low level intelligence is all that is needed to get an article published in SA.

    Link to this
  30. 30. jengel47 6:04 pm 03/3/2011

    So how does all this relate to the fact that a disproportionate number of comedians are Jewish?

    Link to this
  31. 31. professordarkheart 4:11 am 03/11/2011

    The main problem I have with this column is not in its offer of an evolutionary explanation for the prevalence of queer ladies in comedy, but that it focuses on the comedian without thinking about audience. When we’re talking about successful professional comics as opposed to the use of humor in social interactions generally, the question of who the audience likes to laugh at becomes at least as important as who is funny in and of themselves. Since stand-up humor consists in large part of making fun of people (or ideas, or situations, or what have you), I’d be inclined to ask whether the demographic slant Jesse notices is a result of our variable willingness to enjoy an essentially aggressive behavior depending on who’s doing it.

    Link to this
  32. 32. RufusLevin 11:15 am 04/9/2011

    How might you explain the predominence of Jewish Males as both comedians and comedy writers? In many ways these individuals, like the lesbian ones, may have experienced a lot of discrimination, bullying, and social abandonment during formative years in a predominent male dominated culture that values male prowess over mere male gender, and especially over male pretender gender. That self esteem and ego gratification can happen from an audience of paid patrons, instead of one-on-one social dialog with peers, could easily explain why a group of low esteem and isolated people could seek approval, and then occupational income, from public exhibitionism.

    Link to this
  33. 33. jimcasebolt 5:00 pm 06/22/2011

    I’m not going to suggest that the author isn’t on to something, because I think he might be, but I’m a big fan of stand-up and I’ve seen a lot of gay male comedians, on shows for general audiences and also on programs targeted at the LGBT audience, such as on Logo network. Unfortunately, the only name I’m coming up with off the top of my head is Mario Cantone!

    Link to this
  34. 34. GayComedy 9:45 pm 09/26/2011

    I am a gay male stand-up comedian (http://www.chrisdoucette.com) and I’ve got something to say! The author is right – lesbians succeed at a far greater rate and with more success than gay men do. The proof: There are only a few gay male comics who have achieved any real success: Mario Cantone, Ant, Alex Mapa, Bruce Vilanch. I can qualify these guys for days – Cantone is a mixed media/cabaret performer; Vilanch is a mainly a writer; Mapa’s national success is through Ugly Betty, not stand-up; and Ant had a moment on a reality show. To compare them to Ellen Degeneres, Wanda Sykes, Rosie O’Donnell, and other lesbian comics isn’t really fair – these women were all closeted when they achieved their fame and fortune. Coming out simply didn’t harm them. The real question is why there aren’t any gay men who also achieved fame only to come out later. I believe it’s because the cost to these guys is greater than it is for lesbians (for example, it’s why Rachel Maddow can be an openly gay anchor, but Anderson Cooper can’t – there’s a higher price to pay to be an openly gay guy). The truth is, whether you’re a gay guy or a lesbian, it’s hard to gain a national audience and be out at the same time. Most straight people simply don’t relate to gay people, and as such, it’s harder to build a following.

    And that raises an interesting issue: Gay men are the only demographic that don’t prefer to watch “one of their own” in stand-up comedy. Straight white guys like straight white guy comedians, women like women performers, lesbians like lesbian comics, black people like black performers… and so on. But gay men? We prefer to watch women comedians. All of our icons are women: Judy, Lisa, Bette, Cher, Madonna, Kathy Griffin, Margaret Cho, and so on. Not a single gay icon is male. We like to watch performers we relate to, and for gay men, that’s women. Gay men also like fantasy – and when another gay man takes the stage and talks about real life, there’s just no fantasy. And while gay men may be amused by a gay male comedian, that same audience will think an equally talented female comedian is a genius – simply because gay male audiences prefer watching women. So, gay male comedians are the only demographic without a built-in audience to help drive their careers, and that’s partly why you don’t see any of us on the national stage. Oh, and then there’s that whole homophobia thing. Mainstream platforms would rather continue to use gay men for a cheap, reliable laugh than to invite an actual gay comedian to be part of the team. It’s exploitation, pure and simple.

    That said, the most successful, mainstream gay stand-up comic in America today isn’t a stand-up comic at all. He’s a writer. David Sedaris sells out theaters all over the country during book tours. The audience is always the liberal, National Public Radio crowd, but still – he’s achieved a level of (somewhat) mainstream success than any other gay male comedian.

    Oh, and to correct myself: There is a type of stand-up comedy that gay men like watching other gay men perform. And that’s a roast. I recently roasted a fellow gay comic in New York City and the crowd ate it up. Wanna see it?

    http://www.youtube.com/user/chrisdoucettecomedy#p/u/3/V1gLQkMR4AU

    Link to this
  35. 35. frankop880 3:32 pm 10/3/2011

    there seems to be so much more lesbians than ever before.this is a disgrace that women have to be with other women rather then straight good men like me that are looking to meet a decent straight woman today. this world is full of hate as it is without these type of women that are adding to it. i have no respect for women that are like this, and they are just filthy pigs as far as i am concern.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Special Universe

Get the latest Special Collector's edition

Secrets of the Universe: Past, Present, Future

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X