UNIB20016 SAME SEX DESIRE: FROM GOD TO GENES RESEARCH PAPER _____________________________________________________________________________________
An Alliance-Formation Theory Based Explanation of Male Same-Sex Sexual Behaviour Throughout Human History By Eddie Ma “If a structure, function or behavior occurs in a number of individuals or species, and if it persists through several generations, then that feature can be presumed to serve some evolutionarily advantageous function. That is, it must contribute to the persistence of the species.” (Neill, 2009) By Neill’s definition, the evidence of homosexuality across all facets of the human species and its persistence throughout history, leads to the conclusion that homosexuality must serve some beneficial evolutionary purpose. Though this may be the case, the inability of same-sex pairings to directly produce offspring means there is no direct pathway for homosexuality as a genetic trait to be inherited in the next generation. These two questions, the evolutionary function and inheritance, form the great paradox of homosexuality and must be answered by any theory describing the origins on homosexuality. Numerous alternative theories have been proposed by researchers on how homosexuality may be inherited. Among them, the alliance-formation theory postulates that same-sex sexual behaviours (SSSB) within pre-Westernised societies provided advantages to an individual through strengthened social alliances and bonds that increase the chances of survival and reproduction of those lower on the social hierarchy. These alliances are not exclusive and partners are expected to form heterosexual relationships and produce offspring, therefore allowing inheritance of such traits. But these alliance advantages do not explain the role of sexual relationships within homosexuality, as social alliances can form without the need for sex. Therefore, we must also examine how the inclusion of a sexual aspect to alliances would be more advantageous, and the evolutionary basis for human sexual behaviours. As most research has focused on same-sex behavior within males, examples and research presented will largely be based on male same-sex behavior. First formally proposed by Frank Muscarella et all (2005), the alliance-formation theory of homosexual behavior argues that “the capacity to engage in homosexual behavior under certain ecological conditions may have been adaptive for human ancestors. The sexual behavior may have reinforced same-sex alliances which contributed directly to survival and indirectly to reproduction.” Studies of homosexual behavior in humans are based on contemporary Western societies, which can be traced to the rise of Christendom a mere two thousand years ago, while historical evidence of SSSB can be traced to the earliest human civilisations. Muscarella argues that examining SSSB under current contexts “do not reflect ancestral environments under which homosexual behavior is believed to have evolved or the specific ecological conditions that may have affected its expression.” In human societies, “males with high status mate with more females and have more viable offspring than do those lower in the hierarchy” (Adrians & Block, 2006). The capacity for inferior males to engage in SSSB with males superior to them not only help to increase the chances of survival of both males, but also “provide
access to resources that were previously inaccessible to them” (Adrians & Block, 2006), namely high quality female mates, which directly influenced the evolutionary fitness of their future offspring. In support of this theory, an experiment was conducted that studied how “the perception of targets who engaged in homosexual behavior would vary in its speculated evolutionary context.” (Muscarella et al, 2005). Participants were presented with a case where two same sex adolescents formed a sexual relationships due to one party’s connections to a professional basketball league, which the other desired. Three different endings to the case were presented, where the basketball player was introduced into the professional league through the social connections the other party, where both parties went their separate ways without any effect on social status, and where the relationship negatively influences the basketball player’s reputation and is places them within an inferior league. Participants are asked to select the most probable scenario out of the three and the results indicated that “targets who engaged in homosexual behavior were perceived by both male and female observers as likely to have greater social status and reproductive opportunities when the behavior was presented in its speculated evolutionary context” (Muscarella et al, 2005). Zoological research also supports the alliance-formation theory, where male bottle nose dolphins are known to engage in mounting and genital contact, which “strengthens alliances between small groups of males and provides practice for later opposite sex encounters” (Sommer & Vasey, 2006) Though documentation of homosexuality throughout history is scarce compared to heterosexuality, there are numerous examples throughout human history where same-sex relationships, and the alliances they foster, directly or indirectly leads to increased chances of survival and higher social statuses. In the pre-Westernised tribal societies of history, it is not uncommon for Western missionaries to be confronted with frank and shameless displays of SSSB, which at most times served a clear social function. Most same-sex relations functioned in the form of a mentorship between an adolescent youth and an older man, where the older would provide guidance to the younger, training him the duties and skills needed in manhood, or passing on the qualities that were seen to be essential to masculinity. This behavior is most famously documented within Classical Greek society, where the practice of paederastia was openly accepted and, in some instances, encouraged. The older male, the erastes, would take a younger boy lover, the eromenos, usually between the ages of ten and fourteen, and act has his mentor and guide (Crompton, 2003). The erastes was valued as a model of courage, virtue and wisdom, while the eromenos was valued for their youth, beauty and excellence. In Cretian culture, pederasty is not only accepted, it is viewed as “disgraceful for those who are handsome in appearance or descendants of illustrious ancestors to fail to obtain lovers” (Strabo in Crompton, 2003). Eromenos who were able to secure powerful erastes would benefit from the social privileges included, such as positions of honor in celebratory dances and races and allowed to dress in “better clothes than the rest, that is, in the habit given them by their lovers” (Strabo in Crompton, 2003). Similar customs can be found in Pre-Meiji Japan, where the older male is referred to as the nenjan and younger the wakashun. Similar to Grecian society, nenjan were expected to educate their wakashu in nasake and giri, love and duty; “if a wakashu is unreasonable, we can only imagine the soul of his lover” (Tsuneo Watanabe in Crompton, 2003). It was also not uncommon for shogun, the military heads of state, to keep wakashun, who were observed to “storm the battlefield, warding off the enemy and accompanying their lords to the end” (Crompton, 2003). This form of behavior is also widespread within pre-Westernised tribal societies, such as those of Melanesia. In tribes such as the Koraki, the Etoro, and the Sambia of New Guinea, young boys are
removed from their mothers around the age of ten and placed under the guidance of an older male. These boys would be expected to engage in sexual relations with the mentor and, most importantly, consume semen, either orally or anally. Semen was seen as not only the pure essence of masculinity but also the stimulant that fuels male puberty and male masculinity. To the Sambia tribe, “a married man who didn’t play around enough will die quickly like an aeroplane without gasoline” (Neill, 2009). Tribes of New Guinea are also known to engage in initiation rituals which involved public homosexual acts and the consumption of semen. In the Azande tribe of the pre-colonial Central African Republic, bachelor warriors were assisted by apprentice lovers, such as providing meals, assisting in work or carrying their shield. When they reached maturity, the apprentices are ascended to warrior status and take on lovers of their own. Same-sex relations can also benefit the younger party very directly, where some cultures expect the older, active partner to provide gifts in return for sexual favours, such as within tribes of the Santa Cruz islands. Another form that SSSB took was in alliances between adolescents themselves. In this form, neither party provided substantial privileges to the other, but both parties work together to increase their chances of survival and social statuses. Same-sex lovers often proved to form powerful partnerships. Quoting Phaedrus in Plato’s Symposium: “if there was some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor and emulating one another in honor.” (Crompton, 2003). Phaedrus’s visionary army of male lovers was later realized in the form of the Sacred Band of Thebes. The hieros locos was organized by Theban general Gorgidas in 378 BCE as a separate branch of shock troops within the army of Thebes comprised of pairs of male lovers. Their rise to fame came when they unexpectedly ran into Spartan troops at Tegyrae, where they were outnumbered two or three to one. Plutarch remarks “never before had Lacedaemonians in superior numbers been overpowered by an inferior force, nor indeed in a pitched battle where the forces were evenly matched” (Crompton 2003). For Crompton, the rise of Thebes as the most power state in Greece is attributed directly to the Sacred Band. In primitive cultures, these youthful alliances work more directly to ensure mutual survival. Young Native Americans, as observed by 18th Century Jesuit missionary Joseph Francois Lafitau, “became companions in hunting, in war and in fortune: they have a right to food and lodging in each other’s cabin” (Neill, 2009). A similar arrangement is seen within the Asmat tribe of New Guinea, where youths refer to the lovers as mbai and provide mutual support throughout their lives. As described by a Asmat tribe member, “when I bring fish to the house of my mbai, he will bring me sago the next time he goes into the jungle... when I am angry at someone, [my mbai] must come with me to fight him. When [my mbai] has a fight, I must help him. We must share what we have” (Neill, 2009). It is clear from this recount that in more primitive times, male same-sex relationships can be mutually beneficial to both parties, both in fighting off predators and accumulating resources, thereby ensuring survival and mating opportunities. It is important to note, in all examples above, all man participants are expected and do engage in heterosexual activities later in their lives. These men will each marry women respectively and sire children but some may choose to continue their same-sex relationships even after marriage and fatherhood. But why do these alliances have to involve sex? Logically, it is possible, and much simpler, to form non-sexual relationships and not have to manage the emotional turmoil that comes with sex. The answer may lie in why humans have sex at all. The purpose of sex is to impregnate and therefore
reproduce but sexual behavior is motivated by hormonal reactions that are detached from conception reproduction. Human behavior is regulated through the mesocorticolimbic reward system, activated by neurotransmitters. When humans engage in actions or experience events that, in the past, have proven to have a positive influence on their survival or reproductive chances, the brain releases large amounts of dopamine which results in the natural feeling of reward, which motivates for the repetition of that same experience (Gray & Garcia 2013). In sexual relationships, the act of sex releases copious amounts of dopamine and endorphins that stimulate the reward pathways of the human brain, which results in euphoria and idealization of the partner, referred to as the feeling of “love”. This is logical as the act of sex is directly linked to reproduction and humans motivated to actively seek out sex have a greater chance of producing more offspring. This reward system is not guided by reproduction but rather the “act” of sex, and therefore is not restricted by gender. As long as the same stimulants are present, the effect is still achieved. Sexual desire in humans is driven by attraction. Specific physical traits of both sexes are sought out for their various evolutionary advantages. Men are genetically conditioned to be attracted to individuals that display youth and health. Features that indicate good health such as full lips, clear skin, smooth skin, clear eyes, lustrous hair, muscle tone and high energy level behavior are viewed as attractive by both heterosexual and homosexual men, regardless of sex (Buss, 2003). Youth is directly linked to reproductive ability in females, as the chances of conception are inversely proportional to a female’s age. Therefore, an attraction towards youthful mates would increase the chances of males to produce viable offspring. Women on the other hand, seek features that signal good physical abilities and abundant resources. Women are both physically, and often socially, inferior to men, and often require the protection of their male partners to ward off predators. Therefore, women that seek out males possessing strong physiques are naturally more successful in not only ensuring the survival of her offspring, but also her own survival; “women are typically excluded from power and access to resources… women try to marry upward in socioeconomic status to gain access to resources.” (Buss, 2003). Even to this day, tall men are judged as more attractive across all cultures. The amount of resources a male has to offer a female also influences their attractiveness. Having an abundant amount of resources to share with a female ensures not only the comfortable survival of the female, but the male also more capable in providing for the needs of more children. As humans are a social species, social status and a man’s position within the social hierarchy is directly related to the amount of resources they can accumulate. Buss (2003) notes that “Henry Kissinger once remarked that power is the most potent aphrodisiac. Women desire men who command a high position in society because social status is a universal cue to the control of resources.” In a study of students from the University of Michigan, female students judged professional success and a promising career as highly desirable while a lack of education as highly undesirable. Preferences for certain physical characteristics by each of the sexes did not came about purely because of gender. Like all genetic traits, these behaviors became prevalent because it responded to specific evolutionary pressures experienced by each of the sexes. Females are often unable to fight off predators or accumulate large amounts of resources, due to their inferior physical abilities and social positions. Therefore, women who seek out and are attracted to strong, rich men are much more likely to survive and reproduce. As we can see within the alliance-formation model of homosexuality, men low on the social hierarchy may experience the same difficulty in survival and resource accumulation and the same evolutionary pressures as females. Therefore, like females, inferior men who are capable of
seeking out superior men and forming alliances were rewarded with more resources and greater chances of survival. The physical features men have evolved to be attracted to, with the exception of breasts, can often be found in males as well as females. The adoration of youthful boys within most of human civilization by older men provides evidence that male sexual attraction can be stimulated by other males that possess the features of youth and beauty that men desire. The act of sex with males would stimulate the exact same reward mechanisms as sex with females and therefore could potentially cause the same emotional response and feelings of “love”. Tahitian men have also been noted to believe sex with a man is more pleasurable than with women (Neill, 2009). Males also possess a secondary mechanism of attraction. As young males are often educated in the skills of survival by their fathers, evolution has conditioned them to admire their superior males and seek to emulate their behaviors. As previously mentioned, dopamine and endorphins released during sexual acts also trigger idealization and admiration of the sexual partner, and, coupled with their paternal admiration, boys who feel “love” for their older partners would be more attached to their male role models and would much better emulate their behaviors and accept their teachings. (Neill, 2009) Therefore, it can be viewed that, rather than a looking for a “gay” gene, it may be that both men and women possess the same set of sexual behaviours encoded within our genes. Due to various physical, psychological and environmental influences, different aspects of these behaviours may be expressed or suppressed to form a set of behaviours that best respond to environmental pressures and ensure personal survival. In conclusion, in addressing the paradox of the inheritability of homosexuality, the allianceformation theory proposed by Muscarella et al (2005) provides a logical and historically evidenced explanation of how homosexuality fits into the Darwin’s evolutionary theories. It postulates that the alliances formed through same-sex alliances directly increased an inferior male’s status within the social hierarchy and indirectly increased their access to resources and viable mates. As it proposes that homosexual behavior existed beside heterosexual behavior, and men were expected to have both samesex and opposite sex partners, there is a definite pathway for homosexual behavior to be inherited. Also, an exploration into the fundamental evolutionary pressures that generated the evolution of gender specific sexual behaviours in men and women show that sexual behaviors may not be at all gender specific, but rather different aspects of sexual behavior can expressed and suppressed in response to needs and environmental pressures of the individual.
References Adriaens P.R. & de Block, A. (2006) The Evolution of a Social Construction: The Case of Male Homosexuality, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Vol 49 No 4, pp. 570-585 Bailey, N.W. & Zuk, M. (2009) Same-sex sexual behavior and evolution, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol 24 No 8, pp. 439-446 Buss, D.M. (2003) The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating, Basic Books, New York, USA Crompton, L. (2003) Homosexuality and Civilisation, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Gray, P.B. & Garcia, J.R. (2013) Evolution and Human Sexual Behaviour, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Muscarella, F., Cevallos, A.M., Siler-Knogl, A. & Peterson, L.M. (2005) The alliance theory of homosexual behavior and the perception of social status and reproductive opportunities, Neuroendocrinology Letters, Vol 26 No 6, pp. 771-774 Neill, J. (2009) The Origins and Roles of Same Sex Relations in Human Societies, McFarland and Company Inc, North Carolina, USA Sommer, V. & Vasey, P.L. (2006) Homosexual Behaviour in Animals, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK