"The thing I hate about an argument is that it always interrupts a discussion." - G. K. Chesterton
***
A very interesting (albeit quite old) theory, supported by many studies, by the guy who came up with the
Mirror Test (more recently famous for asking "
Does Semen Have Antidepressant Properties?"):
"As a result of paternal uncertainty and an almost limitless reproductive potential, males, as we have seen, have been selected to seek high-frequency sex with a variety of different females. Females, on the other hand, can maximize their inclusive fitness by holding out for loving, lasting, caring relationships that insure for provisioning. It should be apparent that because of these differences the best interests of females serve to constrain those of males and vice versa.
Homosexuality allows the gender differences in sexuality to stand out in relief because the participants have congruent sexual interests. In homosexuality we see the basic differences between male and female sexuality in a relatively pure and uncontaminated form (Symons, 1979). Indeed, as I show, the evidence strongly suggests that homosexuals continue to act out what would otherwise be optimal heterosexual strategies. The expression of sexuality in any context is bound by a biological imperative that the participants typically have no insight into nor control over. For instance, male homosexuals tend to be far more promiscuous than their female counterparts. Recent surveys show that as many as 25% of homosexual males have sexual encounters with a thousand or even more homosexual partners (Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981). For females, in stark contrast with males, the median number of homosexual partners is only three (Loney, 1974). Male homosexuality often amounts to a sexual smorgasbord with an almost limitless variety of opportunities, whereas it is clear that lesbians only involve themselves in relatively permanent, monogamous relationships. Also paralleling the heterosexual world, male homosexuals develop attractions to one another primarily on the basis of physical characteristics, whereas females respond to each other along an emotional dimension. Thus, although the choice of sex objects differ, the expression of sexuality remains basically the same in both heterosexual and homosexual contexts.
We have argued (Gallup & Suarez, 1983a) that if the sexual best interests of males and females were not at odds with each other there would be little or no homosexuality. In other words, according to our hypothesis the evolution 01 optimal heterosexual strategies among humans has created a situation in which the sexual agendas of males and females are so different from one another that homosexuality has become an increasingly frequent outcome. Accordingly, we see the reasons for adopting a homosexual lifestyle as being quite different depending on gender.
Heterosexuals almost invariably have to compromise their sexuality. For males this means far fewer sexual opportunities and fewer sexual partners than they would like, whereas for females it means having to settle for a relationship with a potentially unfaithful male that will probably lack the deep emotional and psychological ties she would like. The typical adolescent male, for instance, is primarily interested in intercourse and immediate sexual gratification. Females, however, are looking for lasting, caring relationships. Whereas adolescent males have limited access, at best, to heterosexual outlets, females are confronted by just the opposite set of circumstances. Many adolescent females are subject to more potential heterosexual opportunities than they can handle, and early heterosexual experiences often leave the impression that men are “animals” and interested in nothing but sex. Not infrequently females are lied to, taken advantage of, and coerced into sexual encounters that they would just as soon avoid.
Thus, according to our hypothesis, homosexuality in females is a result of becoming progressively disillusioned and disenchanted with heterosexual relations. Witness the fact that although homosexual males no longer see them as sex objects, they usually continue to relate to females in a positive way. For many lesbians, however, the situation could not be more different. Homosexual females often evidence an unbridled hatred and distrust of males. They see males as oppressive, domineering, and abusive. The despise (sic) that lesbians hold for males stands as obvious testimony to the validity of our model. Males, on the other hand, become homosexual because of frustration and inadequate opportunities for sexual expression in the heterosexual mode. The relative unavailability of heterosexual outlets for the adolescent male is further complicated by the fact that females show a distinct dating and sexual preference for older males (Daly & Wilson, 1983). The existence of gender differences in age of peak sexual desire may also contribute to putting adolescent males out of phase with females. For males, sexual appetite often reaches its highest level in the late teens, whereas for females it can be delayed into their 30s (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953).
As evidence for the fact that lesbians are disenchanted with heterosexual relations, whereas homosexual males are frustrated by a lack of heterosexual opportunities consider the following statistics. Approximately 85% of female homosexuals have had heterosexual intercourse prior to turning to homosexuality, but this holds true for only 20% of the gay male population (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Schafer, 1977). In other words, as evidence for having had an ample opportunity to experience dissatisfaction, female homosexuals are over four times more likely to have had prior heterosexual experience than their male counterparts. Loney (1974) reports that prior to adopting a homosexual orientation, females had an average of 5.3 heterosexual partners, whereas among males the mean was only 1.3, with many males never having experienced heterosexual intercourse at all. Ironic as it might seem, but highly consistent with our analysis, homosexual females typically have had more heterosexual than homosexual partners. Similarly, whereas only about 1 of every 17 homosexual males has been involved in a prior heterosexual marriage (Schafer, 1977), almost 50% of lebsians have been party to a previous marriage with a man (Cotton, 1975). Suffice it to say that the inexperience with heterosexual relations is consistent with the notion of heterosexual frustration among males as a precursor to becom ing homosexual, and that the average lesbian has had more than ample opportunity to be rebuffed and become disenchanted with males.
A recent study by Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith (l9I) also provides support for our model. They found, as a result of a detailed survey, that contrary to popular opinion homosexual sex object choices do not develop in childhood. Rather, adolescent experiences appear to be the important ones in determining adult sexual orientation. This follows from our analysis because heterosexual frustration and/or disenchantment presuppose the kinds of heterosexual conflict that would only emerge during puberty.
Finally, it is important to comment about hcteroscxual hostility toward homosexuals. Why should some heterosexuals show disdain for persons who have adopted homosexual lifestyles? Aside from the hostility that many lesbians have for males, most homosexuals do not exhibit intense anti-heterosexual attitudes. Lesbians, for instance, do not harbor a disdain for heterosexual females. We think that this phenomenon can also be dealt with in the context of evolution. Under most circumstances, homosexuality would detract from rather than contribute to one’s genetic representation in subsequent generations. Thus, homosexuality could pose a threat to heterosexuals to the extent that their offspring might be seduced and/or modeled into developing homosexual tendencies. From the standpoint of evolution and inclusive fitness, exclusive homosexuality is tantamount to sterilisation. Therefore, we would predict that reactions to homosexuals by heterosexuals should be context specific, if our analysis is correct, heterosexual hostility toward homosexuals should be directly proportional to the extent to which they pose a perceived threat to a child’s emerging sexuality.
The data on anti-homosexual attitudes, or what is known as homophobia, are highly consistent with this interpretation. Many people with anti-homosexual attitudes believe that homosexuals (especially males) will attempt to seduce young children (Morin & Garfinkle. 1978). As would be expected, homosexuals experience more discrimination in teaching than any other profession (Larsen, Reed, & Hoffman. 1980). For instance, although Levitt and Klassen (1974) found that three quarters of persons polled would object to homosexual teachers, far fewer would bar homosexuals from becoming artists, musicians, or florists. If our analysis is correct, similar objections should hold for homosexual babysitters, nursemaids, and athletic coaches, whereas lumberjacks, truck drivers, and construction workers should be relatively immune from such targeted unrest. Although it has frequently been overlooked it is important to acknowledge that to the extent that seduction may be involved in the development of a homosexual orientation its source may often be peer-based rather than enticement by homosexual adults.
This analysis of homosexuality has a number of implications. If homosexuality is a byproduct of selection for optimal heterosexual strategies, then it would follow that homosexuals are not sick, perverted, or deranged. Nor would homosexuality be a consequence of gender-identity problems, genetically based homosexual predispositions, hormonal imbalances, or altered brain chemistry. Indeed, parents would no longer have to bear a burden of guilt, responsibility, or even shame for an offspring’s homosexual inclinations if this approach is correct.
Should parents, on the other hand, be concerned about minimizing the chances that their offspring might become homosexual, effective action would require minimizing the likelihood of heterosexual conflict during adolescence. In males, this might take the form of providing greater access to heterosexual opportunities (e.g., legalized prostitution). For females, however, the solution is not as simple, since the problem is one of dissatisfaction rather than frustration as a consequence of inadequate opportunities. Perhaps early education about the source and significance of sexuality and reproduction in the context of evolution, as well as the reasons for the gender differences in optimal heterosexual strategies, might prove to be an effective way of dealing with the development of sexual orientation in females."
--- Unique Features of Human Sexuality in the Context of Evolution / Gordon G. Gallup (in Alternative approaches to the study of sexual behavior, ed. Donn Erwin Byrne, Kathryn Kelley)
Also interesting: menstruation starts when you have 17% body fat, and ovulation at 26%, which is why fat girls start bleeding earlier.
And:
"Indeed, the role of female choice may very well be a deciding factor in dictating a variety evolutionary change. In many respects males are nothing but an evolutionary experiment being run by females. Except for providing a complimentary set of gametes the male’s role in reproduction is frequently negligible. Therefore, although females are in effect calling the shots when it comes to evolution, it is important to recognize that this cuts both ways. If there are male traits that some females find objectionable (e.g., domineering) they have no one to blame but themselves and their female predecessors."
Naturally, anticipating protests, he included this lengthy epilogue:
"Some readers no doubt will have taken exception to a variety of points made in this chapter; and that is fine. But bear in mind that the tenability of any interpretation is a function of the degree to which it is consistent with current information, the extent to which it integrates existing data, and whether it has testable implications. Whether you feel comfortable with an interpretation is irrelevant. For most psychologists, thinking in evolutionary terms requires a dramatic change in set, as many of us have been taught to emphasize environmental influences to the exclusion of practically anything else. The ostensible advantage of an environmental approach is that it creates the impression of being able to affect change, particularly when it applies to social and psychological ills. The environment and society is often construed as a convenient scapegoat and a means of avoiding responsibility.
The emphasis in this chapter has been on gender differences in sexuality that are a reflection of our evolutionary heritage, not environmental or cultural influences, Although much of what was said in this chapter about the sexual agendas of males and females may not seem “fair,” it is important to realize that evolution does not operate according to preconceived notions of human dignity. equality, or affirmative action. Nor does evolution work to promote human happiness. It serves to propogate (sic) the species, and particularly among mammals the female’s role, like it or not, is much different than that of the male. These are differences over which we have no control and for which we need not apologize. To rationalize or even to deny such differences is another matter, but that does not change basic human biology. Regardless of whether you are male or female, straight or gay, flat chested, or unattractive, you can spend the rest of your life attempting to buck biology and protesting your unfortunate lot in life, but that will not change the ultimate reasons for these differences, or, for that matter, the rationale for your existence. Differences do not necessarily mean better or worse, equal or unequal, fair or unfair, they are merely facts of our biological heritage. Economically, socially, and politically you might be able to do something about your lot in life, but sexually the gender differences are irrevocably fixed."
