I am not gay, nor am I scientist or credentialed philosopher. I am just an average woman who claims the right to think her own thoughts, and develop her own ideas. I don’t presume to ask that you agree with me, but I do hope that if you venture to read this, it will lead you to create some new thoughts of your own.
My hobbies involve animal rehab and mythology. A weird mix to be sure, but a mix that has led me to an interesting theory: The survival of the species is dependant on the Gay and Lesbian population!
The seed of this strange little thought came when I was blogging with a wonderful musician and poet, who happens to be gay, and I posed the following question:
I have done a bit of study into what we call The Prime Biological Imperative: Which basically means that males are instinctively driven to spread their seed, and females are driven to find a long term mate, and that both of these contradictory strategies are used to ensure survival of the species.
When one is Gay, there must be question, deep in the mind, about giving up the ability to pass on DNA. In addition, I wonder which forces are stronger…the male drive to spread seed, or the female drive to pair?
One might assume that each individual hashes this out, but when I look at all the things we do, as an unconscious part of this imperative, I suspect that being gay does not free one from those instinctual bonds.
For example: I always tell women that the reason they wear make up, is not to look pretty, but because when a woman is sexually receptive, her lips and cheeks swell and redden. It’s a signal to men. Make up is just a tool to get seed spreading fella’s to pair up and hang around!
When a husband or wife separate for a day or two, for out of town trips or whatever, the male will always instigate sex on return. Why? Not because he missed her, but because he knows that, other males had potential access to her, and if he makes love to her, his sperm will kill off the other sperm.
There are many examples of this in scientific literature, but I have never read anything about how it effects the gay/lesbian population.
The response from my insightful friend was, “I can say from experience, the male gay culture is built around sex, and judgment of physical appearance is harsh. It’s a superficial culture.”
So I started thinking about homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and what role this plays in the survival and propagation of various species, and why it might be a “superficial culture.” If homosexuality exists in animals and humans, and has existed for all of history, then it must serve a purpose as a function of the Prime Biological Imperative (PBI).
There have been many studies, which show how we are sexually attracted to people with beautiful features. This type of visual selection ensures that only the best DNA is passed forward. The stereotypical male often puts little if any focus on “beauty”. So, since we know that a certain percentage of gay people do pass on their DNA, maybe we can surmise that this harsh “judgment of physical appearance” by the bachelor bonding groups, serves an important function in the overall survival of the species.
After all : “In animals in which “bachelor groups” form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds.” So maybe, that small percentage of the gay population that breaks off and breeds, is the key group that stimulates the striking beauty of the male physique.
You know what the girls always say: “All the good looking guys are either married or gay!” So basically, Gay men are the influence responsible for keeping all men attractive enough for women to be willing to mate with.
As for lesbians, I think there is a different PBI. I think that this goes WAAAAY back to our ancient ancestors. Very early societies were much like deer herds, where women and children formed the core group, while the males stayed off to the side in bachelor hunting groups, thus females would pair up as partners and parents. Women learned to rely on each other, trust each other and nurture each other, as only women can. Some found that they had little need for men.
In the book Who Cooked the Last Supper, Rosalind Miles states: “At no point in prehistory did women, with or without children, rely on their hunting males for food…Meat from the kill comes in irregularly and infrequently…women regularly produce as much as 80 percent of the tribe’s total food intake, on a daily basis…In the myth of Man the Hunter, he invents the family by impregnating his mate and stashing her away in the cave…But in contradiction to this Big Daddy scenario, a mass of evidence shows that the earliest families consisted of females and their children, since all tribal and hunting societies were centered on and organized through the mother. The young males either left or were driven out.”
So it makes sense that women would form same sex pair bonds to ensure the survival of each other and their offspring, and that men would create same sex pair bonds, focused on physical attraction, to ensure that they could get some access to that magical link to eternity called DNA.
What really amuses me about this little, amateur theory of mine, is that the social persecution of the religious homophobics to “convert” Gays, is also just a function of the PBI. Their misguided and judgmental efforts for conformity actually serve to keep the Gay DNA in the gene pool!
Now, I don’t know if my idea has any real merit, or if someone smarter has already thought of it, but I do know that we are all who we are for a reason, and that there is a divine purpose for everything.
What do you think?