Self-limiting Phenomena

kw: practical darwinism

I've recently read The Empress of Ireland by Christopher Robbins. I debated with myself about presenting a review, or even mentioning the title and author. The "Empress" in question was a well-known Irish filmmaker who happened to be gay, aged about eighty when the author, who is straight, met him. Robbins was in his late twenties at the time. The two had a friendship that revolved about a screenplay and autobiography, neither of which was completed. The narrative covers about two years, with a coda taking us to the old fellow's death at ninety-one.

Probably wittingly, Robbins presents a few items to fuel the nature-nurture debate: is homosexuality a choice? One may as well ask, is neurosis a choice? The latter answer is required to clear the ground for proper examination of the former. Not because gay people are particularly neurotic, but because many of them do report incidents in their youth that would turn any but the most determined of heterosexuals at least to celibacy.

And besides, I think we need a new word here: homophilia. It is one thing to prefer sex with persons of one's own gender; it is another to actually love one's sexual object(s). This distinction is quite clear among heterosexuals, particularly shown by abusive spouses toward their supposed "loved one." When an abuser uses the word "love," believe me, he (or less commonly, she) isn't using the same dictionary as the rest of us. To an abuser, love really means possession and control, and has no element of nurturing or cherishing.

So, let us consider, are gay men born or made? I recall a statement by Jesus, about those who don't marry. As an aside, the common English Bible uses the word Eunuch for perpetual bachelors, but the Greek word being translated does not refer to someone whose "family jewels" are missing. So for Eunuch I will substitute Celibate, the noun for a person who never has sex. Jesus said, "Some Celibates were born so, some were made Celibates by others, and some make themselves Celibates for the sake of the kingdom of God."

This can be paraphrased to refer to the way I think of homosexuals: some were born so, some were made so by others, and some make themselves homosexuals for the sake of maximal pleasure. All the reading I have done leads me to these conclusions:

• "Some were born so": perhaps as many as two percent of men, regardless of environmental pressures, never care about sex with women, and are attracted only to men. At least some of these are probably genuine, genetic homophiliacs.
• "Some were made so by others": There are two cases here. Some men who might otherwise live heterosexual lives were so traumatized, often by abuse at a woman's hands, that they cannot bear the thought of intimacy with a woman. If they are to have a sex life, it will be with men. The other case is those who were courted by a homosexual—rather than simply raped—into experimenting with male-male sex, and found it thrilling or enjoyable enough that it remains a part of their life. Such a man is likely to marry a woman and raise children, but if he cheats on his wife, it is more likely to be with men. These two categories may comprise five to ten percent of men.
• "Some make themselves so...": This is the province of prisons and boarding schools, where about half, perhaps more than half, the inmates periodically gang-rape a chosen victim, or gang-bang a more willing victim. Their environment prevents association with women, so that proportion who prefer sodomy to celibacy use men as a surrogate. Returned to more normal society, most never seek solace with a man. And some, finding their own feelings ambiguous, do so only once in a while.

Putting all this together, it seems there is a genetic component, but it is a minor thing. Those with a strong anti-hetero proclivity simply won't reproduce, so there is a continual loss of these kind of genes. However, this isn't a case of blue eyes and brown eyes. There are likely a number of genes involved (if there are any...it may not be so), and the wide spectrum of hetero-vs-homo activity tells me that, while perhaps half of men could find it within themselves to engage in male-male sex, only a small number find it preferable to male-female sex.

Thus, for genetic reasons, regardless of the attitude of society, homosexuality in the population is self-limiting. Note: This discussion is limited to male homosexuality, mainly because I know so very little about the female variety.