> Many gay subcultures are thoroughly obsessed with appearance. ... I wandered into a gay house party one day was amazed at how every single guy there was much better looking than I was.
Sorry, but your one accidental foray into a single gay party is not exactly convincing evidence for your theory.
More importantly, even if gay men care about their appearance more than straight men, I'm not convinced that the behavior is purely linked to them being gay, as much as social norms that have developed around what "being gay" is "supposed to be".
Sure gay people often run in different social circles as straight people, and it makes sense that they would have different norms. But similarly, people in Paris are generally far more attractive and fashionable than folks in St. Louis. There is little genetically different from these people, it's just the norms that they develop in.
This is definitely true, can see it anywhere I go. Out of maybe 10 gay friends we currently have, there is 1 which cares about himself on normal guy level. Rest have at home more beauty chemistry than my wife (or her friends), always perfect hair trim, new trendy clothing matching perfectly with each other, also obsession with taking perfect selfies (meaning 30 minute sessions for 1 photo).
Yes there are straight guys similarly obsessed with appearance/presentation (is the term 'metrosexual' still in?), but in far lower numbers
> gay men are trying to attract men, and men care a lot about (the other person's) appearance
Even if this is true today, I'm not sure it's anything more than a modern day social trend. Why should men care more about appearance than women? On a "selfish gene" level, in choosing a mate, both sexes should mostly care about passing on their genetic material. Appearance certainly can be a factor in that decision, but it's only one of many (e.g., responsibility, trustworthiness, work ethic, etc.).
If in today's society, men do care more about appearances than women, I strongly suspect that is a function of the structure of our society itself than anything genetic or innate.
One could easily imagine a society where gay men care less about appearances than straight men.
> Even if this is true today, I'm not sure it's anything more than a modern day social trend.
You're in luck! Records of the last several thousand years exhaustively document that ornamenting your appearance is characteristically a female behavior. For example, check out this text from the Iliad:
> [The Carians] were commanded by Nastes and Amphimachus, the brave sons of Nomion. He came into the fight with gold about him, like a girl; fool that he was, his gold was of no avail to save him, for he fell in the river by the hand of the fleet descendant of Aeacus, and Achilles bore away his gold.
About that specific example, this could be because "girls" were perceived to be greedier in that ancient culture. In the modern day, I certainly wouldn't first associate "fighting for gold" with "wanting to look prettier".
From a purely functional point of view the man's entire contribution to reproduction can last as little as a few minutes. Therefore the cost of trying again is low, so it's not strictly necessary to consider the personality factors you mentioned. They take a long time to assess, which creates a trade-off between investing in marginal gains for the offspring vs. simply creating more. In short, men have the option of r-style reproduction which skews the selection criteria toward immediate visibility.
Women on the other hand have to invest significantly more time and energy into reproduction every time, so the incentive is to find a mate with the best genes overall. Men are more likely to help raise their own offspring than another's, so a woman's best bet is to find one who is most likely and capable of doing so. Those traits are more difficult to discover but the marginal payoff is huge compared to a man who jets after five minutes.
All of the above is pure conjecture on my part and I have no expertise. But consider the counterfactual: given sexual divergence and the asymmetry of reproduction, why would men and women have the same selection strategies on average?
> From a purely functional point of view the man's entire contribution to reproduction can last as little as a few minutes. Therefore the cost of trying again is low, so it's not strictly necessary to consider the personality factors you mentioned.
Under your reasoning, it's also not strictly necessary to consider physical factors either. The fact that men have to invest less in child-birth could suggest that men are genetically more prone to promiscuity than women, but it does not suggest that men are more interested in appearance.
Under a "selfish-gene" presumption where everyone wants to spread there DNA, and men, for physiological reasons have to make less investment than a women, it still does not follow that men would weigh physical appearance more than women. Given two women, one with better looks and one with more responsibility or power, genetically, it makes more sense for the man to choose the one with more responsibility.
I suspect that there is no genetic basis for men "caring more about looks" than women, it's entirely a social construction. If society deems physical appearance to be important, it can easily skew any underlying genetic preference. In the nature verses nurture argument, I suspect nurture has at least 80% of the power.
Sorry, but your one accidental foray into a single gay party is not exactly convincing evidence for your theory.
More importantly, even if gay men care about their appearance more than straight men, I'm not convinced that the behavior is purely linked to them being gay, as much as social norms that have developed around what "being gay" is "supposed to be".
Sure gay people often run in different social circles as straight people, and it makes sense that they would have different norms. But similarly, people in Paris are generally far more attractive and fashionable than folks in St. Louis. There is little genetically different from these people, it's just the norms that they develop in.