Emotion and Gender, Jim Morrison

Emotion and Gender Typicality Cue Sexual Orientation Differently in Women and Men: Heterosexual individuals tend to look and act more typical for their gender compared to gay and lesbian individuals, and people use this information to infer sexual orientation. Consistent with stereotypes associating happy expressions with femininity, previous work found that gay men displayed more happiness than straight men—a difference that perceivers used, independent of gender typicality, to judge sexual orientation. Here, we extended this to judgments of women’s sexual orientation. Like the gender-inversion stereotypes applied to men, participants perceived women’s faces manipulated to look angry as more likely to be lesbians; however, emotional expressions largely did not distinguish the faces of actual lesbian and straight women. Compared to men’s faces, women’s faces varied less in their emotional expression (appearing invariably positive) but varied more in gender typicality. These differences align with gender role expectations requiring the expression of positive emotion by women and prohibiting the expression of femininity by men. More important, greater variance within gender typicality and emotion facilitates their respective utility for distinguishing sexual orientation from facial appearance. These findings thus provide the first evidence for contrasting cues to women’s and men’s sexual orientation and suggest that gender norms may uniquely shape how men and women reveal their sexual orientation. Men are not meant to express as much emotion as women (who are stereotyped as hyperemotional), but are expected to express more dominant emotions, such as anger, to a greater extent than women. Gender inversion theory proposes that gay men and lesbian women have the minds of the opposite sex, thereby explaining their same-sex attraction (Katz, 2007). Specifically, gay men are expected to be like straight women, and lesbian women like straight men, in a plurality of their thoughts and behaviors that includes their emotional expressions (Geiger, Harwood, & Hummert, 2006; Tskhay & Rule, 2015). Although gender inversion is an exaggerated stereotype, particularly as the association between sexual orientation and gender typicality is not always straightforward, it does bear a kernel of truth. Future research could expand to examine how gender typicality and emotion cue men’s and women’s sexual orientation across cultures. Such efforts might also consider target ethnicity, given featural overlaps with emotional expressions (Zebrowitz, 2010) and as sexual dimorphism also varies across ethnic groups (Hopder, Finklea, Winkielman, & Huber, 2014). Source: link.springer.com

Janet Erwin: Jim Morrison was a wonder of man, the best and most considerate lover I have ever had. He was straight and in my opinion, if he insinuated anything different it was indeed to get a reaction from others, to push people's buttons. He was a prankster. Jim had 20 paternity suits filed against him throughout his career. He told me he was being sued by women he'd never even heard of, let alone had sex with, and when I asked him how he felt about gays--after witnessing his intense discomfort at being hit on by a gay man at a bar--he said he didn't mind "as long as they don't try to compromise me." He also said he couldn't imagine "how men could do that to each other." Stephen Davis dared to paint an imaginary scenario featuring the owner of a local coffe shop in Florida, Tom Reese, whose denial of an affair didn't stop Davis' twisted fantasies. The problem is, Tom Reese mentioned Jim Morrison frequently in the talks he gave to his coffeeshop audiences--adding in every instance that there had never been anything of a sexual nature between them--and how he detested those rumors. 

Patricia Butler: My interview with Jeff Moorehouse led me to the conclusion Jim Morrison was straight, nor bisexual. I talked with the Morrisons and their attorneys, Brian Manion and Louis Reisman. Despite the offensive nature of some of the material with which I approached them, the Morrisons were unfailingly gracious and timely in their responses. I had more problems with the Coursons, who didn't want my book about Pamela published. I interviewed Pamela Courson's psychiatrist who treated her during 1967-1974 (Dr. Paul H. Ackerman). Also I talked at length with Eve Babitz, Mirandi Babitz, Pamela Des Barres, Paul Ferrara, Brian Gates, Bob Greene, Babe Hill, Jac Holzman, Jerry Hopkins, Randall Johnson, January Jensen, Christopher Jones, Robby Krieger, Rich Linnell, Frank Lisciandro, Kathy Lisciandro, Ray and Dorothy Manzarek, Anne Moore, Jeff Morehouse, Herve Mueller, Julia Negron, Barbara Stewart Noble, Randy Ralston, Thomas Reese, Paul Rothchild, Raeanne Rubenstein, Ellen Sander, Bill Siddons, Cheri Siddons, Danny Sugerman, Cathy Weldy, Officer Darryl Williams, and Gilles Yepremian, among other insiders from The Doors' circuit. Dr. Michael W. Kaufman, the pathologist who analyzed Pamela's autopsy report, wrote: "Her weight, state of nutrition, and state of hydration would indicate that she was living a normal existence. Of significance was that examination of the endometrium and that the ovaries demonstrated evidence of recent ovulation. This evidence of ongoing reproductive functioning is frequently absent in drug abusers. The liver, likewise, did not show changes suggestive of alcohol abuse on either a chronic or acute basis. The lungs did not demonstrate changes which would be expected in chronic intravenous drug abusers." John Mandell’s statement to the police that Pamela had been using heroin for “approximately one year” seems to corroborate January Jensen’s and Ellen Sander’s observations that Pamela was not using heroin during the year she lived in Sausalito, whis is also confirmed by Dr. Kaufman’s report. “Yes, I can substantiate that,” Pamela's psychiatrist Dr. Ackerman says in response to this assessment of Kaufman’s report. “She did use heroin, but it was not a heavy habit. She didn’t start frequent use of heroin until after Jim Morrison died. And it wasn’t very heavy use, just enough to be worrisome.” 

Virginia Flagg: Jim Morrison was an outlaw in a lawless place. He had the guts to be what everyone won't face they are.... and he took it to the limit, looked at it with brazen and fearless wonder and it all broke his heart. He chose Pamela because she inspired his best instincts and she was someone who remembered him who he really was. Their relationship was wild, strange and romantic, a very tragic romance.

Babe Hill says, “Jim had not only one-night stands, but other girl friends, certain women he was fond of if Pam wasn’t around or if they were fighting. Whatever was convenient, a place to crash, a soft shoulder.” Babe Hill had asked Jim in Miami if he had handfasted Patricia Kennealy, and Jim conceded it was possible, saying, “I don’t know what I did! I was drunk. Maybe I did, but there was no emotional involvement with her.” Jim told Babe he was going to have to confront Kennealy. Babe Hill, “Jim’s attitude was, 'I was indiscreet in my past, and now I have to go pay for it,' because he was such a gentleman. He would never just tell any woman just to fuck off. So, whatever it was, he had to see her and confront it.”

Patricia Butler: Danny Sugerman's whole focus was always to further the Doors' myth as concocted by him and Ray Manzarek. I told Danny once, when I was having trouble juggling everyone's conflicting interests in my book, that it was hard to make everyone happy. He said that when he was preparing NOHGOA, he just had to choose who to be loyal to. And Danny chose Ray Manzarek. It is something to think about. However, I decided to be loyal to Jim and Pam, and it made all the difference. In fact, Danny pointed some of the things out to me that were not true in NOHGOA before I could bring them up, and he asked me to leave some things out of my book because he didn't want these stories to continue. Source: groups.alt.music