From Geoffrey Blundell
We can be sure that any species living today has a strong and stable sex
drive in times of both plenty or adversity, or it would not be here
(12 May, p 26).
In his study of the 10-spined stickleback, Desmond Morris showed that if
their territory was restricted, males without territory of their own would begin
to respond in a female way to males who had territory, thus neatly reducing the
breeding male population. In our overcrowded world, humans are showing a similar
response. Because it is a deeply instinctive response, it “feels” right to the
people involved.
Homosexuality does not lead to reproduction, therefore there cannot be a gene
for homosexuality. If there is one, its function must be to allow this diversion
of sexuality during times of plenty. This possibility is present to some extent
in all of us.
There are four possible choices open to us—accepting or rejecting our
masculinity, and accepting or rejecting our femininity. This allows for every
variety of relationship.
Advertisement
There’s a seaside postcard that shows a hen-pecked man doing the washing up.
The wife is standing over him with a rolling pin. Society accepts this role
reversal because they can reproduce, but rejects the relationship if the woman
is a man with exaggerated masculinity or the man is replaced by a masochistic
woman.
As Charlotte Bach was fond of saying, “If you want to know what is ‘normal’
then study the abnormal. ‘Normal’ will be somewhere between those limits.”
London NW3
