|
|
Is Biology an Enemy of Gay Unions?
Despite the many strides made by the gay movement, the prevalence of lasting long term gay (male) relationships is low. Rare is the gay couple that has spent years together. Why are gay men mostly single? And how is it that lesbians are usually in stable relationships? Of the many factors conspiring to render gay relationships rare, conventional wisdom spotlights mainly the sociological and environmental ones. The most obvious thing we gay men have in common with heterosexual women is the attraction towards men. How likely is it that that is the only trait we have in common with heterosexual women? Not too likely, in my opinion. In fact, other feminine traits abound in many of us: the love of cooking, gossiping- arranging tables and things, etc. Some of us suppress our feminine side while others deny its very existence, (perhaps because we are comfortable enough with our male bodies to identify ourselves more as men than as women). But deep down our desires may be those of heterosexual women, hankering for masculine and heterosexual ‘real’ men. Unfortunately for us, the heterosexual ‘real’ men are not all that interested in us, and by the time we come to this painful realization we may have already experienced futile crushes on them. The only men that are in the market for dating men are other queens like us. Hence the gay ads: ‘Desire straight acting’, ‘no femmes or queens please’. In a situation where manhood is highly cherished, its most visible symbols are greatly prized: a muscular body, a maturity that often comes with age, the ability to conduct arguments without losing equanimity and bursting into tears, etc. Butch men are a rare and precious commodity- in the gay world.
I believe the other factor too has a biological origin. The female gender in many species - including humans - is the choosier one when it comes to the choice of mates. Since the female is saddled with the onerous task of raising kids, she chooses a male who she believes will be a better provider for the kids. In contrast the male goal is to spread their genes widely into healthy offspring, which is why they tend to have sex with multiple women and are not as choosy about a woman’s behavior as they are with her looks. Heterosexual men also seem to be less choosy about their mate than heterosexual women are about men. Men prefer good looking, smooth skinned women because those traits are often indicative of a woman's good health: having babies from such women means healthy offspring and consequently more chances of survival and better guarantees of further gene transmission.
Modern civilizations have largely reined in these biological urges through monogamous marriages, and societies in South Asia have used arranged marriages to overturn the notion of female choice: it is usually the male who gets to pick a woman of his choice. Gay men share many of the tastes and behaviors of heterosexuals and are just as picky and choosy as women. The difference is that women usually do find the man of their choice, whereas we gay men usually do not. So no matter how many gay men we meet and ‘check-out’, we are always waiting for that Dream Prince of ours. Even if we find someone we like, there are high chances that the other is as picky and choosy as us, and does not quite like us.
If we assume the ‘man-in-a-woman's-body’ argument for lesbians, we can see why lesbians are often successful with stable relationships (or at least at dating someone): like males they are not too choosy about whom they date.
After surmounting the twin adversaries (lack of availability and choosiness) and getting into a relationship, gay men are confronted by a third factor: the similarity. The equality of both partners. Both have similar tastes, capabilities, hobbies and outlooks. Granted, they may not be quite the same, but the differences are not as dramatic as between men and women. ‘I will wash the dishes and you go have a beer and watch sports’ rarely applies to gay couples. It's more like, "Let’s go to the museum, then let's cook and then let's study Swahili". Equality is a great thing from an egalitarian perspective (both are equal so none dominates the other) and for initial getting along. But I believe that a relationship bonds more strongly when there is a suitable mix of equality and inequality. Heterosexual men and women bring markedly different capabilities to the table, creating a mutual dependence that strengthens the relationship. Many of us heap disdain upon this seemingly quaint notion of inequality-as-advantage because we have seen its ill effects from close quarters in societies that oppress women. Inequality can lead to dependence and the dependence in turn is used by men to oppress women. In our rush to weed out the oppression, we wrongfully target the inequality for destruction.
(I am referring to an intrinsic inequality - one based on biology - such as capabilities, certain attitudes and thought patterns. I do fully favor equality of opportunity between the genders i.e. both men and women should have a chance to follow pursuits once traditionally reserved for the other gender e.g., women should have a chance to become firefighters and men should have a chance to raise babies).
Any successful stable gay relationship is truly precious for having overcome all these odds - and many others. Be prepared to date someone who is not as masculine as you would have liked him to be. I have a habit of jumping to conclusions by making sweeping generalizations from sparse data - a habit that is often greeted with unbridled disdain by many. After all, a generalization is simply a stereotype straining to act dignified, and ‘stereotype’ as we all know, is a four-letter word. This writing is a product of such generalizations. Many of the points I raise are hard to prove - or disprove - in the absence of hard and fast data and adequate research, and I do admit that all of the above factors could be plain wrong. But belief in them is steadfast for the moment.
This writing may be perceived as heretic and homophobic because its central assertion, ergo, biological factors militate against stable gay relationships, runs contrary to the increased recognition of gay unions that the gay movement is trying to achieve. But I strongly believe that its introspective gist will equip us with the very tools we need to make a success of gay unions. In all our battles we must know who the enemy is - even if it happens to be biology.
Rex D. 12/12/03 |
All written word is "The Opinion" of Thomas A. unless otherwise noted...
|
