Human Sexuality As Multiple and Mutable

Western science has been attempting to explain animal homosexuality for over two hundred years, yet it has run into considerable problems by trying to relate all aspects of animal behavior to reproductive (as the previous chapters have shown). The phenomena of animal homosexualy/transgender –and more generally, non-procreative heterosexuality -- require a rethinking of some of the most fundamental concepts in biology. Where are we to turn for models of animal behavior and evolution that can encompass such seemingly “unproductive) activities as homosexuality, heterosexual oral sex, and reproductive suppression? The key lies in what may at first seem an unlikely source of inspiration: the traditional knowledge of indigenous and tribal cultures. These aboriginal worldviews often regard gender and sexuality (in both animals and people) as inherently multiple and mutable .

Bruce Bagemihl

Biological Exuberance pg. 214

The traditional idea expressed above in the note by Bagemihl – that sexuality and gender in both animals and people are multiple and mutable is - as Bagemihl suggests - the key to a more productive view of sexuality. However, before developing his idea I feel the need to clear a possible misconception out of the way. Behavior, identity, desires and social roles are indeed multiple and mutable, But biological gender is not. Mama Bear and Papa bear, whatever their desires, social or psychological identity or social roles, remain Mama and Papa bear. Biologically male bears do not become biologically female bears whatever else may change about them. The idea that they do is magical and irrational. Although he uses the slippery term, “ gender,” I do not believe that Bagemihl is wanting to say that biological identity transmutes. If he were I would have to part company with him which would make me very sad because I feel he has put his finger on precisely the point that needs to be the starting point of a productive re-assessment of the psycho/social reality of sexual identity: it is multiple and and mutable. Bagemihl has presented us with more than six-hundred pages of scholarly data that support these facts.

Once we absorb the gist of the data we are able to free ourselves from two major cognitive practices that block any adequate understanding of human sexuality:

1. Assigning people to psycho/social categories that are thought to be fixed and immutable aspects of their identity – gay, bi, homo, hetero, queer, trans, pedophile, etc. etc.

2. Dividing people into normal (desirable) and abnormal (undesirable) on the basis of the category to which they are assigned.

The question then arises, if we discard placing individuals in exclusive and fixed categories – the now famous initial list – that grows ever longer – how do we organize our understanding of the range of sexual desires, behaviors roles, etc, that we surely do find in the natural order? I think our central organizing concept must becomes a new model of a normal animal, and consequently of a normal human being. A normal animal or person is one who is able to relate to many aspects of sexual experience at least to some extent. Bagemihl seems to demonstrate this adequately. On the human level this spins off to suggest the new model we need. We are all homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pedophile, etc. etc. to some degree or another. Each individual is his or her own combination of elements – unlike any other individual. There are, in other words, as many sexual identities as there are people – identities that are frequently shifting.

This brings us to the question of sexual norms. Animals, so far as we can tell, have no norms. They act according to impulse or “instinct,” but not according to principles. If there are indeed as many sexual identities as there are people, and they are constantly mutating, would that not lead to an anarchy that would be random and chaotic, and in the last analysis in nobody’s interest. If we human beings are to lift our sexual powers into something that serves the higher aims of evolution, if such there be, does our behavior, in distinction from the animals behavior, need some guidance? At the very least we cannot have our children and our aging grandparents humping the legs of our guests.

Seriously, though, It has been the belief of humanity that sexuality, if it it properly restrained and guided, leads to a higher form of Eros. Look at Plato’s dialogues or the Hindu holy books. I assume that this is true. Our behavior requires some rules, or direction or principles if we are to guide our sexual impulses in productive and creative ways. But what rules or whatever can bring order and a positive direction to this plethora of identities? I would suggest a surprisingly simple answer.

The law of Love.

I apologize for using this overworked word that is so often used in a simple-minded, sentimental and banal manner. But I know of no other. So let me suggest what I mean by love in this essay. It seems to me that there are five primary faculties of the soul: The will, sensation, emotion, behaving, and willing. The central one in the matter of the soul is the will. Specifically, to love is to will the well-being of the other. If we will the well-being of the other we will be motivated to behave in a manner that furthers his or her well being. In order that our behavior be effective we will be motivated to think carefully about what will and will not in fact be helpful. And a feeling that encourages such action will guide the entire process. But love is not a emotion separated from action and thought and will. That is just sentimentality. This is my formulation of the matter but it was inspired by Assagiole’s book, The Will.

My central point about the will is simple. Human sexuality – either its performance or its restraint -- must be motivated by love – by the will for the well- being of the other. If it truly is, probably most of our specific rules are superfluous. At least we can say that there are no rules that are absolute except to act with love. The complexity and difficulty of figuring out situation by situation on its own merits can legitimately be simplified by by what my father used to call “practical absolutes.” These are rules that are best followed as a general thing. You should not lie is one. Generally speaking this is a rule that should be followed. But to confess to the Nazis that you are hiding Jews in your house in order to adhere to this rule would not have been a good thing to do. Another such rule would be to refrain from doing anything objectionable to your partner. It is hard to think of situations where such rule can be lovingly violated. But my aim here is not to write a complete work on the ethics of love. Even if I wanted to, this task would be over my head. My aim is to show the relevance of a Bagemihl’s central point – that sexuality is multiple and mutable.

One doesn’t have to reflect on my definition of love for very long to realizing that it immediately draws one into the political sphere of action. People have needs – from simple physical ones to complex metaphysical ones. If we are concerned that all people have the opportunity for meeting their needs to a reasonable degree we must build a appropriate economic and political pattern that facilitates this, and creating such a world requires of course, political action. Even though the number of individual identities is large in the extreme, the types of needs that people have is limited. We all need to eat, to have a clean place to shit, to feel safe, to belong to a caring group, and to live with a reasonable sense of self-esteem. We could construct a world that met these needs if we operated out of love rather than greed – not out of a mushy sort of love, but out of a hard-headed will for the good of the other.

Theses reflections suggest that two simple ideas are needed to guide a new understanding of sexual identity – an empirical one, and a normative one. The empirical one is, as Bagemihn makes clear: human sexuality is both multiple and mutable. The normative one is what we need for the guidance of sexuality: human sexuality, as opposed to animal behavior should be guided by love, defined as the will for the well-being of the other. With the rule of love in position as the guiding norm of a person's life – and of one’s sexual life in particular – we can allow people who naturally love each other to do so without interference or a lot of worry about their doing serious damage to each other. We already have rules about assault which prevent any person from forcing him or her self on another – which is the central concern we must deal with for those who do not act in accordance with the rule of love.