In his essay "How to Think About Homosexuality" (Rothbard-Rockwell Report, December 1998: 5), philosopher Michael Levin fires what he believes to be cannonballs thru the arse of the homosexual movement, some of which hit their mark admirably, while others merely fizzle. My concern here is with the fizzlers rather than the sizzlers, however, since the credibility of any criticism is vitiated if some of it is unfair or uninformed.
Levin begins by asserting that "The position on homosexuality most consistent with a free, prosperous society rests on three pillars". The first of these pillars is not, as one might think, a firm erection, but instead is "Honesty: homosexuality is abnormal". Levin's arguments for this include an argument from authority ("The psychological and medical community know this"), and the observation that humping the lower end of the alimentary canal is not the "job" for which the penis was intended in the evolutionary scheme of things.
Now if Prof Levin wants to argue that the psychological and medical community "know" something, he is going to have a lot of trouble convincing me, not merely because psychology is still largely a congeries of bullshittical theories conjured up by such anal-retentives as Freud, Jung and the touchie-feelie-make-me-squeelie types, but also because the medical community "knows" that the way to treat disease is with a regimen of poison, slash and burn (drugs, radiation and surgery), which makes iatrogenic ("healer-caused") and nosocomial ("hospital-caused") illnesses the major killers in the context of disease (There are, for example, more than 100,000 deaths annually in this country caused by medicines), which is to say "Caution: Doctors may be harmful to your health".
But if this is not convincing enuf, let us ask the good Professor how he knows that buggery is not, after all, one of the "jobs" for which the penis is intended. True, we may safely assume that sexual reproduction is one of the jobs for which it is intended, but by what criterion can we fiatically pontificate that buggery has by Nature been excluded? To the contrary, I think we may actually argue the opposite position. To begin, we might well start with a remark once made to me by an old tennis buddy, divorcee, poet and father of two, Bob Perlman, to the effect that he had gotten so low on pussy that he "could fuck anything that walks". The point here is that, if normal sexual outlets are thwarted in homo sapiens, he has a tendency to drop all the sapiens and become a homo, at least until he can once again dip into the soothing sauna of a mons veneris. And, from the evolutionary standpoint, why might this be? The answer, it seems likely, is (at least) to preserve the reproductive function until it can find a more appropriate outlet (no pun intended). In short, therefore, the potential for faggotry is contained in all of us, and all that is required is a sufficiently long absence of normal sexual contact. Which means, of course, that sodomy is indeed one of the "jobs" for which the penis is intended.
This, however, does not answer the good Professor's blast against the infernal regiment of homosexuals to the effect that permanent homosexuality is not one of the "jobs" the penis is intended for. But here, again, we need only to consider the evolutionary question: If homosexuality were non- adaptive, then it would have been eliminated at the beginning of time quicker than you can say "Let there be sex". Or in other words, altho homosexuality plagues but a tiny percentage of the population, the very fact that it has hung on like a bulldog with lockjaw thru eons of heterosexual humping shows that it must have some adaptive value. And what could that value be? One possible answer is to provide a sex life form men whose professions are incompatible with married life -- soldiering, exploring, monasticism, and similar occupations (After all, didn't JBR Yant once remark that a seminary is a place where young men go to be inseminated?). Indeed, it may well be that homosexuality provides an important element of the much-maligned "male bonding" which goes so far in smoothing the way for the Organization Man, at least when such men find it impossible to go home to the wife every night.
But traditional religion is adaptive too, so how then can we explain its anathema against homosexuality? The answer, of course, is that homosexuality is not meant for most people, because the number of professions in which men do not have access to women is small; and since the major desire of the Church is to see that its minions become fruitful and multiply, inasmuch as that will mean more money and power for the Folks in Charge, the main thrust of the Church's sexual teaching has been -- to pun on a well-known Papal bull -- "Pack 'Em in Terris". But lest my theory be challenged too heavily, it should be pointed out that the Church -- or at least the Romish one -- has been completely hypocritical on the matter of homosexuality, inasmuch as it is rampant among the "celibate" clergy, and has led to innumerable cases of turning altar boys into altered boys, for which the Church has been required to pay thru the nose, or perhaps other orifices. All of which suggests that it is no insult, as various religious wing-nuts have asserted, to think Jesus may have been a poofer -- but only common sense (Isn't 13 about the right number for a daisy chain?).
But if all this isn't bad enuf, Prof Levin fouls himself yet again by asserting that the reason for homosexual promiscuity is that "... nature has made the proper use of body parts enjoyable and their improper use unsatisfying, to insure their proper use. Since homosexuals are using their sex organs wrongly, they are permanently unsatisfied, always seeking the completeness found only in the heterosexual love nature had in mind [Anthropomorphism! Sic, sic, sic!] in shaping us. Homosexual compulsiveness is not due to patriarchy or capitalism or homophobia, but is inherent in the condition itself." This, to put it kindly, is complete nonsense. Homosexuals are promiscuous because if one gets buggered, then that arouses him and he wants to bugger someone else, but his partner has already gotten off and doesn't want to be buggered, so a third party is required, who then requires a fourth, etc. Homosexuals are only unsatisfied if they are put into the straitjacket of heterosexual pair- bonding. Homosexual sex is naturally promiscuous, but a better description would be to say that it is naturally social, while heterosexual sex is naturally private. Or to put it bluntly, Prof Levin has his explanation ass-backwards.
But if we now realize from the above discussion that the "perversion" of homosexuality is in fact evolutionarily adaptive in its own peculiar way, this lesson may be carried further to recognize that many of the other sexual behaviors so gratuitously labeled as perversions are themselves equally adaptive. As JBR Yant remarked (Mortal Words, v 5):
While the conservative set is wont to refer to various common sexual practices -- anal and oral sex, for example -- as "perversions", in reality these practices -- like all practices which survive the test of biological time -- have an important utilitarian value. This value -- shared also by French kissing -- is the transfer of microbes between sexual partners, the utility of this practice being that, if one partner has a disease which -- if transferred to the other partner -- might compromise that person's parental role, then -- since parents live in close contact where the disease would probably be transferred eventually anyway -- it is better for a potential parent to get sick at the outset of a relationship -- and die if need be -- rather than to continue with an uninoculated relationship and risk the likelihood of sickening or dying in the midst of parenthood, thereby reducing the healthy partner's chance of reproducing successfully. This thesis has received some indirect support from Matt Ridley's recent book, The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (Macmillan, 1994), which speculates that "the point of sex" for which there is most evidence, altho it is also the least obvious, is "its value in thwarting disease", since "the sexual mixing of genes is analogous to changing the locks constantly against invading microbes" (Jim Holt, "Sex, the Adult Route to Health and Survival", Wall Street Journal, 4 Mar 94). But whatever credence one may give Ridley's conjecture and its relevance here, it is notable that the microbe-transfer theory I am suggesting is also supported by the fact that "perverted" sex, and also French kissing, are most likely to be engaged in at the beginning of a relationship -- or when the partners have been away from each other for a lengthy period -- but are mostly abandoned after the initial contact, thus suggesting that it is inoculation which is the be-all and end-all of "perversion". If this is true, however, it suggests yet a further theory, namely, that male homosexuals, by constantly "inoculating" each other via their "perverted" sex and their tendency to be promiscuous -- have a natural tendency to be struck down by disease much earlier than those of normal sexuality, meaning that disease has a natural limiting effect on the reproductively-useless homosexual population, even when the hangman's noose does not. Or in other words, if AIDS did not exist, the filthy practices of homosexuals would have caused it to be invented.
* * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * *