Might homosexual behaviour be considered
adaptive?
Your potential answer to this essay
question should encompass information drawn from both human & non-human
primate studies.
‘It must
be remarked that exclusive homosexuality is a rather startling
phenotype
in either sex, from an evolutionary point of view.’
( Daly & Wilson,
1983: p301 )
Whilst asexual reproduction is the simplest
form of reproduction for organisms – in behavioural, physiolocal and
morphological terms – it does not allow for genetic variation. Therefore,
sexual reproduction evolved, whereby a combination of the parental genes would
contribute towards the phenotypic make-up of their offspring. In light of this,
homosexual behaviour seems to be not only selectively disadvantageous, but also
‘the enemy of evolution’. It does not allow for the continued reproduction of a
species, and yet because it is seen in several species, both primate and
non-primate; it must be concluded that it is selectively advantageous in
certain numbers, and that it confer some advantages on an organism. (Web Ref. 3)
It was once thought that male homosexuality
was a result of a mis-routing of the nerves of the penis into the anus, so that
the erotic response was moved to that area. ( Nimmons, 1994: p70 ) Thankfully,
intelligent thought has since moved on from such ideologies, and to engage in
homosexual acts is no longer universally felt by Western society to be a result
of deviance, or mental instability.
‘From
1900 to 1960 many homosexuals believed that it was better to be counted as sick
than as a criminal, and they welcomed the official ( American ) psychiatrist
classification of homosexuality as a disease. During the early 1960s, after a
bitter debate, homosexuality was removed from the list of diseases in the
American Psychiatric Association’s ‘Diagnostic and Statistical Manual’.
(
Kitcher, 1996: p207 )
In a famous ‘letter to a mother’ written in 1935,
Sigmund Freud stated that whilst ‘homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, it
is nothing to be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of
the sexual development…’ ( Freud in Kuper ed. 1985: pp362-363 ) This
‘variation’, can be defined as being both the biological drive for, and actual
performance of, same-sex coitus. (Web Ref. 3)
By
this definition, a person can engage in both homosexual and heterosexual
behaviour – in this context, such behaviour is far simpler to explain in
evolutionary or adaptive terms than exclusive homosexuality.
‘Homosexuality has
now been documented in dozens of species,
from primates and
elephants to sea-gulls and fruit flies.’
( Nimmons, 1994: p70 )
Although Queen Victoria made homosexuality
between men illegal, she dismissed the act legislating against lesbians as a
‘pointless matter’, as the prospect of sexual love between two women seemed so
far-fetched to her. It would have been, apparently, the equivalent of 'two
negatives', with only men having any 'positive' sexual drive. ( Web
Ref.s 4, 5) Such a viewpoint has been revealed over the
course of the Twentieth Century as hopelessly wayward, and we now know
homosexual behaviour to be by no means an aberration of the human race, nor a
sexual preference restricted to the primate world. Instances of homosexuality
have been observed throughout the animal kingdom, as Nimmons has noted, even
amongst reptiles (Denniston, 1980, p. 31), fish (Chan & O, 1981) and the
lower invertebrates (Denniston, 1980; Dickemann, 1993). ( References taken from
Web Ref. 3)
In the non-human primate groups, incidences
of homosexuality have been recognised in the activities of rhesus monkeys,
female stumptail macaques (Mitchell, 1979, pp. 134 &142), Japanese macaques
(Mehlman & Chapais, 1988; Mitchell, 1979, p. 416) male chimpanzees, female
bonobos, male mountain gorillas, male siamangs, male white-handed gibbons
(Wrangham, 1986, p. 367; Yamagiwa, 1987; Yamagiwa, 1992; Edwards & Todd,
1991) and male pygmy chimpanzees (Savage & Bakeman, 1978). (Web Ref. 3)
Fedigan
( 1992; p142 ) writes that female-female sexual behaviour has been noted in
‘the squirrel-monkey ( Talmage-Riggs & Anschel 1973 ), the vervet (
Struhsaker 1967a ) and the talapoin ( Wolfheim & Rowell 1972 ), and
Meredith Small also references incidences of female-female sexual activity
amongst bonobos ( 1993: p144-5 ), Japanese macaques ( 1993; p145-6 ) and Indian
langurs ( 1993; p146-7 ).
Other mammals noted for homosexual activities
include: female cattle (Short, 1984)’, burros (Flinders, 1993), Male mountain
sheep (Weinrich, 1982; Denniston, 1980), giraffes, rats (Kirsch & Rodman,
1982), dolphins, dogs (West, 1977, p. 116), female red deer (Short, 1984),
donkeys, cats, rams, goats, pigs, antelope, elephants, hyenas, rabbits, lions,
porcupines, hamsters, mice, and porpoises (Weinrich, 1982). (Web Ref. 3)
There have also been reports of homosexual
pairings in several species of birds: female pairings of Western gulls,
ring-billed gulls, California gulls (Weinrich, 1982; Davies, 1991; Denniston,
1980), budgerigars (also called undulated or shell parakeets) (Kavanau, 1987,
pp. 41 &119); also mallard ducks whom consorted only with other males
during the ‘imprinting period’, itself equivalent to human puberty (West, 1977,
p. 43). (Web Ref. 3)
The multiple
incidences of homosexuality – whether exclusive or no - throughout the animal
kingdom seem to be pointing towards the inevitable conclusion that it is
neither unnatural, nor blasphemy to God’s creation of Man and Woman, to indulge
in sexual relations with partners of the same sex.
To
this end, there have been several progressive discoveries in the scientific
world, which confirm what many homosexuals have for years themselves felt to be
true – that homosexuality is biological, and that genes play a more significant
part in the determination of a person’s sexual preferences than their external
surroundings.
‘In the
1860's Karl Heinrich Ulrichs was one of the first scientists to formally
postulate biological causes for homosexuality, positing the idea, based
partially on his own firsthand experience, that homosexual instincts are inborn
and therefore natural (1990). Ulrichs called homosexuals a " 'third
sex'--a woman's mind in a man's body, and vice versa for women".’
(Web Ref. 3, quoting evidence from Rist, 1992)
More recently, following detailed studies on
the structure of the brain, Simon Levay has been able to not only link its’
structure to sexual orientation but also seems to suggest that the structural
differences between brains ‘may be determined by prenatal hormonal levels’. (
Barinaga, 1991: p956 )
‘Dean Hamer and his colleagues have
discovered an association between the forms of a marker in a region near one
tip of the X chromosome and male sexuality.’ ( Kitcher, 1996: p255 ) However,
Hamer would be the first to stress that his findings are not the definitive
proof as to a genetic basis for sexuality. His findings only served to narrow
the location of this specific piece of DNA ‘to a region of about two million
base pairs’. ( Bodmer & McKie, 1995: pp204 ) However, this research is a
step in the right direction – the revelation that sexual preference is
biologically predetermined will do much to ease society’s prejudices. The hope
by many homosexuals that science will reveal their sexuality to have a genetic
basis… ‘does testify to a widely shared attitude that it is wrong to blame
people for conditions that they cannot help.’ (Kitcher, 1996: p151 ) The idea
of selective abortion on foetuses genetically tested to be homosexual is also
raised by Kitcher ( p153, 206 ), although he seems to look upon it as being
akin in its barbarism to the Nazis’ program of eugenics. There are those
however whom would be happy to see the world ‘cleansed’ of homosexuality.
‘Aids is
likely to have, at least,
originated
as a similar device of Nature [ in wiping out gays ].’
(Wilson, 1990: p35 )
In his text ‘The Third Sex’, Gordon Wilson (
1990 ) repeatedly states his belief that the biological make-up which
pre-determines human sexuality also affects their immune systems. Thus
heterosexuals – those of The First and Second Sex - are more resistant to
disease; accordingly, the HIV virus does not affect them, ‘because they are
more biologically viable specimens.’ (Wilson, 1990: p37 ) Those whom are
infected, yet are heterosexuals, can have their susceptibility explained in
relation to their sex-mix make-up: Wilson feels that ‘they may be biologically Third
Sex types’, or at least, closest to that group on the sex-mix spectrum.
The
author feels that the high instances of AIDS within the homosexual community
‘probably has nothing to do with the practice of homosexuality at all: it is
more likely to be the product of the lack or inadequacy of biological integrity
of the person’s system.’ (Wilson, 1990: p37, 53 ) In his strict adherence to
this belief, Wilson appears to be woefully misguided. His regurgitation of the
idea that the HIV virus is a ‘gay plague’, that it is an act of nature designed
to wipe out all those of The Third Sex is not only laughable but also
scientifically inaccurate, not least because, due to the nature of
transmission, it is very difficult for lesbians to become infected as a result of
sexual contact. Yet the fact remains that homosexual men engaging in
unprotected sex are in one of the highest risk categories for the transmission
of the HIV virus. In this light, male homosexuality appears to have dubious
adaptive value in the late Twentieth Century.
A similar conclusion can be drawn from the
observation of some persons’ actions towards those whom do not live a strictly
heterosexual life. Living as a homosexual can be dangerous in a society which
engenders prejudice – where homosexuality is seen as ‘freakish’ behaviour, or
as blasphemy against God, homosexuals can live in fear of their lives. In the
last few months, the Taliban have been killing homosexuals in Afghanistan by
burying them alive beneath falling walls, following decrees from the Ministry
For The Prevention of Vice and the Propagation of Virtue. ( Attitude Magazine,
Dec. 1998; p12 ) Slightly less extreme responses to instances of homosexuality
have been witnessed in China, where past ‘treatment’ has included mental institution
incarceration, and, more recently, shock therapy – it is therefore no surprise
that in that country ‘doctors state that just 3 in every 1000 are homosexuals,
far below Western figures’. ( Wilson, 1990: p19 ) Up until the 1970’s,
‘treatments’, which ranged from castration through to psycho-analysis, were
advocated throughout The United States in correcting the deviance of
homosexuality. ( Kuper ed. 1985: p362 ) Statistics show that in that country
over 1,000 gay men are injured through hate crimes per year, though less than
5% of cases ever reach the courts. ( Attitude Magazine, Dec. 1998; p12 )
Obviously,
to those suffering society’s abuse for their sexuality, whether physical or
emotional, to be homosexual or to have homosexual tendencies would not seem
adaptive, or advantageous to them. But yet, for the simple reason of the
continued instances of homosexuality throughout nature, it must have adaptive
functions.
‘While
homosexual behavior is not directly functional in the sense of procreation, it
may be a part of a larger sexual pattern which is adaptive in terms of
reproduction, or it may have other significance for social living.’
( Fedigan, 1992; p143 )
Scientists see homosexuality either as a side-effect
of adaptive behaviour, or as an adaptive behaviour itself. In the case of the
former, homosexual behaviour is believed to result from the ‘hypersexuality’ of
the male whom is biologically programmed to inseminate as many females as
possible, yet turns to male-male mounts when females are unavailable for
copulation. (Web Ref. 3) However, this explanation fails to
take into account instances of female homosexuality, as well as cases where
homosexual relations are pursued in
preference of heterosexual relations.
It is suggested that juvenile homosexual
behaviour is universal to all mammals (Web Ref. 3) - as it serves as exploratory
self-education for them, and stands as preparation for adult sexual maturity,
it can be seen to be highly adaptive.
This behaviour is seen in many humans, whom use their adolescent teenage years
as ones of sexual exploration. Many people, if they have indulged in the
minimum amount of homosexual behaviour, did so during this time of awakening
sexuality. Such activities help to prepare individuals for sexual maturity, and
to know which ‘direction’ in which they wish to go ( with regards to their
sexual orientation ).
In searching for an evolutionary reason for
the continued presence of adult homosexuality against fierce selective
pressures, Nimmons ( 1994: p70 ) suggests that: ‘being gay might somehow foster
the survival of one’s relatives, who in turn pass along part of one’s genetic
heritage’. Thus homosexuals would be able to devote their time to the nurture
and protection of their close relatives, an act which would further their
genetic line without the necessary ‘disadvantages’ of parenthood. This theory
has been expanded on by several anthropologists (Ruse, 1981; Denniston, 1980;
Kirsch & Rodman, 1982, all referenced in Web Ref. 3), although it is not completely ‘water-tight’,
as many homosexuals do have children, and those whom do not are not seen to be
universally family-orientated. As most homosexuals are as capable of
procreating as most heterosexuals, and as many do reproduce – humans have the choice of doing so either through
artificial insemination, or the more traditional method - their existence
becomes less of a paradox of nature.
Gordon Wilson, in his book ‘The Third Sex’,
( 1990 ) outlines his feelings that all male hairdressers, singers, cooks,
painters and dancers are gay, and that they perform these activities better
than women can do. ( p11, 76 ) To his mind it would appear that, without
homosexuals, there would be many hungry people with bad hair, desperate for
decent entertainment. Appealing as this theory may sound, it cannot truly be
taken seriously, although there is a case for arguing that without homosexuals
in society, we would to a certain extent be lacking in creativity.
Homosexuality in humans – and other
organisms as well - can be seen as adaptive in a single-sex environment, where
it provides company, affection and stimulus for a partner whom would otherwise
be un-nurtured. Moore common however, are the world-wide instances in which in
certain societies homosexuality serves ritual purposes.
‘The young males of Sambia in New Guinea
must perform a ritualized homosexual act with tribe elders until they reach
adulthood.’
( Web Ref. 2 )
These people believe
that to ingest sperm is to ingest a life-giving force – to refuse to perform
oral sex on a tribal elder would not only be a heinous insult, but also a way
of denying yourself life. Thus, for Sambian men, to conform to such homosexual
practices is highly adaptive.
Almgren ( Web Ref. 1 ), in his essay on instances of
homosexuality in non-European cultures, is able to list several cultures around
the world where to be a homosexual is highly revered. He references to Morris (
1990 )’s work in Polynesia, which details how the Hawaiian chiefs had several
homosexual partners whom acted as lovers, political advisers and foreign
intermediaries. Similarly, Lang ( 1995 ) reveals the ‘berdache’ of North
America to be seen to have ‘special gift’, and states that they were revered by
their society. In present day Nigeria
and Niger, there are ‘yan dauda’ – men whom act like women, perform traditional
female chores ( for example food preparation and retail ), and sleep with ‘real’
men, yet whom rarely have a female appearance, and whom will also typically
marry and have children. These ‘yan dauda’ are popular entertainers, as they
excel in singing, dancing and performing – they have a highly valued place in
society for the very fact that they are ‘yan dauda’, and do engage in
homosexual behaviour. ( Web Ref. 1 referencing Geschiere 1994).
In ‘pre-colonial Philippino society’, each
tribe would have a medicine man whom engaged in homosexual acts, known as the
"babaylan" or "catalonan", whom was considered more
powerful than the official chief. Families considered it a great honour if this
man should chose their young son to live with him until he was married. In this
society, where many worshipped the hermaphrodite god Bathala, it was believed
that bisexuality or homosexuality was akin to immortality, and those whom
practised it would be venerated. (Web Ref. 1 referencing Fleras 1993 ).
From these examples, it is clear that
homosexuality in humans has an important place in many societies, not least
because of the ritual purposes which it serves.
The homosexual practices which have been
observed in other non-human species can also be described as being adaptive for
that species.
‘Long
term male-male and female-female homosexual relationships in primates such as
Japanese macaques (Mehlman & Chapais, 1988), mountain gorillas (Yamagiwa,
1992), and gibbons (Edwards & Todd, 1991) result in lower stress and
tension and/or better grooming for the individuals involved, all of which would
positively influence an organism's health and prolong its chances for
reproduction’.
Homosexual relations amongst non-human
primates have been observed for several decades by those working in the field.
As Small notes ( 1993; p144 ), many anthropologists ( Kano 1980,
Thompson-Handler, Malenky, and Badrian 1984, White and Thomson-Handler in press
) have observed female bonobos engaging in a genital-genital rub with other
females. This ‘G-G’ rub involves a mounting of one female by another, and then
the two rubbing their swollen clitorises against the other. This act is known
to dissipate the tension and excitement which can be created around the
appearance of food, but it also serves as a bonding action. Close friendships
are made and maintained for bonobo females via the G-G rub where, in other
groups, such relations would develop from other activities, for example mutual
grooming practices between chimpanzees. The G-G rub is a highly adaptive
practice for bonobo females, particularly new additions to the group, as
alliances between females can be the determinant in how much food an individual
is allotted. The ‘pecking order’ at food sites is determined for females by
whether or not they have powerful friends – thus the G-G rub ensures moments of
pleasure as well as the bonobo’s position within the group, and their
likelihood of survival in times of short resources.
For similar bonding reasons, Linda Fedigan (
1992; p142-3 ), in her own fieldwork in the study of a troop of Japanese macaques,
found a high prevalence of female-female homosexuality during the mating
season, between those animals whom had not recently given birth. For the
Arashiyama West troop, bearing young appeared to curtail all sexual activity
for a certain period, even in those females whom had previously been highly
active. However, the female-female affinitive bonds made through this sexual
activity were highly likely to last into year-round bonds. As female-male bonds
made through sexual activity were unlikely to last for this length of time,
Fedigan feels that female homosexual behaviour is based on friendship/alliance
principles.
In human cultures homosexual acts can also be
used as bonding rituals – Almgren ( Web Ref. 1 ), referencing Knauft ( 1990 ) writes
of the initiation rites of sodomy which allow young boys to become men, rites
which bonded the participating pair in a close friendship.
This
idea of social alliances can also be used to explain the behaviour of those
gulls whom take a homosexual partner – they are doing so for the sake of their
young whom need to be brought up in a two-parent family. Gulls need a mate,
even one of the same gender, so as to ensure their offspring will be raised
safely. ( Web Ref. 3 in reference to Davies, 1991).
Homosexual behaviour evident in reptiles
can also be seen as adaptive. Passive male lizards of the genus Teiidae whom
are engaged in homosexual behaviour can be stimulated by this activity into
copulation with a female. (Denniston, 1980, p. 31). Kirsch & Rodman (1982),
whom have also observed homosexual behaviour in reptiles, believe that it serve
a territorial purpose – males whom mount other males are seen as sexually
dominant and therefore highly appealing to females in a breeding area. Several
other anthropologists believe this ‘territorial’ theory to explain homosexual
behaviour in non-human primates (Yamagiwa, 1987; Yamagiwa, 1992), and also
mountain sheep (Weinrich, 1982; Denniston, 1980). ( All cited sources taken
from Web Ref. 3 ).
From these examples, it is clear that
homosexual behaviour can indeed be determined to be adaptive for a species.
Even exclusive homosexual behaviour, provided it be in evidence in conjunction
with bisexuality / heterosexuality in others in the surrounding group, or
artificial insemination, so as to allow for reproduction. Homosexual relations
are seen to provide pleasure for participatory individuals, ease tensions, form
social alliances, and even stimulate heterosexual procreative activity. In
humans they can form the basis for vital rituals, and allow participants to learn
more of their own sexuality. In conclusion therefore, homosexual behaviour
ought to be considered to have an adaptive function for those species in which
it occurs.
Bibliography
Barinaga,
Maria. ‘Is homosexuality biological?’ From: Science.
30 August. 1991. V.253. pp956-7
Bodmer,
Walter and McKie, Robin. 1995. ‘The Book
Of Man’. London: Abacus
Daly,
Martin and Wilson, Margo. 1983. ‘Sex,
Evolution and Behavior’. 2nd Edition. Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company
Fedigan,
Linda Marie. 1992. ‘Primate Paradigms:
Sex Roles and Social Bonds.’ 2nd Edition. Chicago: University Of
Chicago Press
Gibbons,
Ann. ‘The Brain As “Sexual Organ”.’ From: Science.
30 August. 1991. V.253 pp957-959
Herdt,
Gilbert. ‘Introduction: Third Sexes and Third Genders’. 1994. In Herdt, Gilbert
ed. ‘Third Sex, Third Gender.’ New
York: Zone Books
Herdt,
Gilbert. ‘Mistaken Sex: Culture, Biology and The Third Sex in New Guinea’.
1994. In Herdt, Gilbert ed. ‘Third Sex,
Third Gender.’ New York: Zone Books
Kitcher,
Philip. 1996. ‘The Lives To Come’.
London: Allen Lane Penguin Press
Laqueur, Thomas. 1990.
‘Making Sex: ;Body and Gender from The
Greeks to Freud.’ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nimmons,
David. ‘Sex And The Brain’. From: Discover.
March, 1994. Pp64-71
Small,
Meredith. 1993. ‘Female Choices: Sexual
Behavior of Female Primates’. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Wilson,
Gordon. 1990. ‘The Third Sex’.
London: Taprobane Ltd.
‘The Last Sex’. 1993. Edited by Adam and Marilouise Kroker. New York: St.
Martin’s Press, Inc.
‘The Social Science Encyclopaedia’. 1985. Edited by Adam and Jessica Kuper. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Anon.
Article in ‘Attitude’ Magazine. Dec.
1998. London: Northern & Shell PC.
Web references
Web
Ref. 1. ‘Homosexuality In Non-European Cultures’ by Tommy Almgren, 1997. Last
modified 13-Oct-97
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/5679/uvapaper.html
Web
Ref. 2. ‘Mister Smarty Pants Sexual Knowledge: Sex, History, and World
Culture’.
Last
modified 13-Sep-98
http://www.chevychase.com/sex.html
Web
Ref. 3. ‘A Paradox of Evolution’
Last
modified 6-Jun-98
http://www.applescripter.com/ParadoxEvolution.html
Web
Ref. 4. ‘Sex and The Law’
Last modified 6-Sep-97
http://bob.bob.bofh.org/~cube/pink/law.html
Web
Ref. 5. University of Toronto Sexual Education and Peer Counselling Centre
Lesbians
Last modified 22-Sep-98
http://www.campuslife.utoronto.ca/services/SEC/lesbian.html
Last revised: 28/07/01