Homophobia Explained 6/8
469 views · Published 4 July 2008 · 10:06 · Indexed 28 October 2026
Channel: Jackies1979 · 2008 · Science & Technology
Should the homosexuals win, then Camperio Ciani's explanation for the survival of male homosexuality might be fit for explaining elegantly the survival of homophobic traits in a population of Homo sapiens -- a phenomenon almost unable to be accounted for by Wilson's (1978) "nest helper" hypothesis or balanced polymorphism hypotheses analogous to that explaining the survival of maladaptive homozygous sickle cell anemia (Hutchinson 1959; McKnight 1997). Support for the view that homosexuality evolved by kin selection is low because offspring care given by homosexual family members has not been revealed to provide reproductive advantage (Kirkpatrick 2000). Mere somatic survival benefits for heterosexual members of a family who keeps homosexual "nest helpers" or repulsion in the face of deviant individuals as a mere side effect of some kind of formerly adaptive repulsion in the face of out-groups or the sick (Navarrete 2006) seems not to explain why some healthy in-group males have specifically been treated with greater contempt than the most direct mating competitors (for a survey of recent homophobia cf., e.g., Sharpe and Pinto 2006). Moreover, the theory argued by Kirkpatrick (2000), namely that the fitness of homosexuality stems from its potential to maintain or strengthen same-sex alliances, which do provide reproductive advantage, not only fails to explain homophobia but even makes it appear as an anomaly: According to this account, the curve for sexual reproduction decreases monotonically as the ratio of same-sex companionship increases, but that for somatic reproduction assumes a sigmoidal increase in survival and maintenance as the ratio of same-sex alliances increases until 50% is reached. If averaging the two curves reveals (Kirkpatrick 2000) that the best strategy for reproductive success is close alliances with both sexes and if these can be maintained by sexual intercourse, then individuals avoiding and/or preventing close same-sex alliances would have a maladaptive emotive basis and be sorted out by selection. Homophobia is, however, not an exception: Somewhat ironically, it is, for instance, court records on anti-homosexual "sodomy" accusations that make us assume that a large proportion of 15th-century Florence men were bisexual (Rocke 1996). Objecting that homophobia is correlated with a disposition for homosexual arousal (Adams, Wright and Lohr 1995) does not help because even if every homophobic individual had, indeed, a secret homosexual desire, it would remain to be explained just how that repression could develop and survive. The apparently obvious answer, namely that repressing homosexuality makes room for heterosexual activity, does not convince because of the striking economic inefficiency it would involve: It seems odd that nature would go to such great lengths and would implement a desire which it suddenly represses again, using a considerable amount of energy, rather than selecting purely or predominantly heterosexual drives in the first place or at least once homosexuality is no more fit.
