COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	homose[f85,jmc]		A theory of homosexuality
C00013 ENDMK
C⊗;
homose[f85,jmc]		A theory of homosexuality

	This theory of homosexuality is not very nice.  Those who
might be offended are forewarned.  It is a Just-So story, i.e.
it explains how homosexuality may have been advantageous during
a certain period of human biological and social evolution.
Here are the considerations.

1. In many species, harems exist.  A dominant male controls a
number of females.  The surplus males are forced out and typically
have no reproductive role.  In these species the males are typically
larger than the females.  Indeed some biologists claim that in
every speech in which males are as much larger than females as
in humans, harems exist.

2. While human harems occasionally are formed in modern humans,
this occurs only under particular social conditions.  I don't
know whether this is or recently has been dominant in any
human culture in the sense that a majority of the children are
the offspring of men with multiple wives.  By far the dominant
form of human family is the monogamous one.

3. The harem form of family as it exists in animals wastes the
work capacity of the non-dominant males.  In most animals this
work capacity can't be used anyway, because each animal has to
feed itself.  However, in any species in which some members may
gather food and bring it to others, this work capacity can
be used.

4. One way of using this capacity is for the dominant male to
control the non-dominant males by making them submissive.  One
way of doing this is by feminizing them, i.e. by dominating
them sexually.  This can evolve, because males and females
share the capacity for both feminine and masculine sexual
behavior although the behavior appropriate to a particular
sex will ordinarily dominate in the members of that sex.
Homosexual rape is a possible way of dominating and feminizing
other males.  Remember that there will be usually an age
difference, i.e. a fully mature dominant male will be
dominating the teen-agers.  This will account for certain
tendencies for child abuse, and it also accounts for the
sometimes aggressive psychology of male sex, e.g. the use
of the word "fuck" as a synonym for aggression.

5. Note that there needn't be a genetic difference between
the dominant male and the others.  Domination would be
determined by age, fighting ability, and social position.
Therefore, any male will have the genetic capability of
fitting into either role, depending on the circumstances
of his life and even changing roles.

6. As the species developed further, it presumably turned out
that the monogamous family was even more efficient than
the harem.  One reason may be that the harem is limited in
size by the number of males and females the leader can dominate,
and it breaks up when he is too old to maintain his dominance.
Leaders of present tribes don't depend on sexual dominance to
maintain their leadership; they use social mechanisms.

7. Therefore, there may have been biological as well as social
evolution away from harems and toward monogamous families.
Associated with this evolution might have been a distaste
for homosexuality.

8. However, the biological part of the evolution need only have
been partial.  Homosexual behavior of both the dominant and
the submissive kind is a possibility for many human males.
The same individual can switch between the two.
The emotional correlate of this behavior is homosexual attraction.

9. The same motivations would be expected to exist in females
but more weakly.  They would exist, because males and females
share the genes controlling behavior, and they would be weaker
because sexually differentiated behavior is accomplished by
the hormones of one sex inhibiting the motivations characteristic
of the other sex.

10. Thus, according to this theory, homosexuality is a biological
relic of an earlier stage of human evolution.  In most people it
is inhibited by further biological evolution together with
social conditions.

11. All this says nothing about whether homosexuality should be
regarded as desirable or undesirable and what should socially
and legally be done about it.  We don't owe our evolution anything,
and we modern humans can try to create any kind of society
we think best according to our culturally evolved criteria.
However, what kind of society we can create may be limited
by the consequences of our past evolution.

12. What attitude we take toward homosexuality needs to be
based on present moral and scientific criteria.

13. The above is a Just-So story, i.e. it tells how certain
phenomena might have evolved under the pressure of natural
selection, because these phenomena might have been advantageous.
It is scientifically important to look for other criteria
for evaluating such a theory, even if Just-So stories can
play an important role in inventing them and may keep a
theory in contention pending other tests.  Therefore, we
ask whether this theory of homosexuality is testable; does
it make testable predictions.

14. Whether predictions are testable depends on the technology
available.  If we had time-machines we could surely test the
theory.  It predicts that as we sampled human ancestors moving
forward in time we would first observe the harem with the
non-dominant males excluded, and then later we would observe
the homosexual relations between the dominant male and the
others.  Later we would observe the transition to the monogamous
family.

15. Lacking time-machines, we must look for other evidence.
Finding it depends on ingenuity and technological resources.
If we can't find it today, our descendants may be cleverer
and richer.  Here are some ideas.

16. Interpret the paleontological record.  For example, with greater
paleontological diligence we might find evidence of local catastrophes
that killed a family together, e.g. the collapse of a cave.
The theory would predict some examples of a single mature large male,
several females and several smaller immature males.  Earlier collapsed
caves would include just the dominant male and his females, and
later collapsed caves would have a more random distribution of
sexes and ages.

17. Interpret the genetic record.  Once the genes controlling
sexual behavior and attraction are mapped, it may be possible
to figure out which ones evolved at which times.

18. Clever people may think of other possibilities.

	It isn't clear to me whether ``gay activists'' or 
extremely anti-homosexual people will be more offended by
this theory.  I didn't invent it for the purpose of offending
anyone but out of curiosity about the phenomenon.