Running head: EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES ON MALE HOMOSEXUALITY 1

Evolutionary Theories on Male Homosexuality

Kelly Novosel

Kansas State University

FSHS 302
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES ON MALE HOMOSEXUALITY 2

Society today recognizes homosexuality more than ever before. Family-friendly

television shows feature homosexual characters, as do movies and magazines. Celebrities are

beginning to more commonly open up about their sexuality to the media as well. Not only is

homosexuality portrayed in the media, but it is also becoming more prevalent in everyday life.

One may observe homosexual couples in the local shopping mall or grocery store, for example.

Although homosexuality is recognized to the public, it did not always used to be. Some believe

this is because homosexuality has been socially constructed into what it is today; others believe it

is biological, that it is not a choice but an identity. There are various theories in regards to the

evolution of male homosexuality in attempt to understand the origins of same-sex behavior.

According to Adriaens and De Block (2006), “Male homosexuality has been viewed by

evolutionary psychologists as a Darwinian paradox, and by other social scientists as a social

construction” (p. 570). To better understand both standpoints, one can take a closer look into the

history of male homosexuality. Although it is seen as an 18th-century invention, nonexclusive

same-sex behavior has been argued to be dated as far back as before 1700. According to

Trumbach (1998), English men used to not only hold sexual relationships with women, but also

with young boys and adolescents. In fact, sodomy occurred most between men and boys, as it

was structured by age. However, at the start of the 18th century, sodomites began to want to play

the passive role in the sexual act, which was meant for the boys and adolescents. This led to

some men ultimately desiring only other men. This is seen as one example of the beginning of a

same-sex sexuality revolution. Significant status differences began to no longer matter in regards

to same-sex sexual acts (Adriaens & De Block, 2006).

According to Adriaens and De Block (2006), “Around 1700, authorities came to see the

control of sexuality as an instrument with which to reach their goals of economic efficiency and
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES ON MALE HOMOSEXUALITY 3

political conservatism” (p.575). To control sexuality, it began to be medicalized. Homosexuality

began to be viewed as “unnatural,” or as an illness, where previously it was known as a

preference. Homosexuality began to become known as an identity. After this, people began to

behave as either heterosexual or homosexual exclusively (Adriaens & De Block, 2006). This is

an example of male homosexuality as a social construction. “Cultural responses to same-sex

sexual sexuality led to the spread of exclusive homosexual behavior and to the creation of a

homosexual identity” (Adriaens & De Block, 2006, p. 570).

Although some theories exhibit male homosexuality as a social construction, other

theories show evidence it is biological. Same-sex behavior also exists in the animal kingdom,

prevalence ranging between animals. This biological standpoint is viewed by evolutionary

psychologists by looking at same-sex sexual behavior instead of homosexuality as an identity.

These psychologists “argue that same-sex sexual behavior in humans may have (or have had) the

same fuction(s) as it has in other primates” (Adriaens & De Block, 2006, p. 576). Adriaens and

De Block come to a combined consensus regarding male homosexuality: an alliance-formation

hypothesis. “Evolutionary social constructivism avoids the excesses of both evolutionary

psychology and social constructivism” (Adriaens & De Block, 2006, p. 583).

Male homosexuality exists not only in the English culture, but in cultures all over the

world. Kirkpatrick (2000) states, “Cross-cultural and historical studies qualify the breadth of

homosexual experience, while medical studies, primarily from the contemporary West, quantify

its depth” (p.385). Cultures located in locations such as the Pacific Islands, China, and South

Africa for example all have certain practices that include homosexuality. Homosexuality is also

practiced in the United States. One may ask the question of why this homosexual behavior even

exists. “In the Darwinian view of natural selection, individuals should seek to maximize
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES ON MALE HOMOSEXUALITY 4

reproductive success” (Kirkpatrick, 2000, p. 387). While homosexual acts do not result in

reproduction, it does not exactly math up with Darwin’s view. As Kirkpatrick (2000) adds, “One

could look at homosexual behavior as a value-free activity, such as grooming, but few societies

do. In fact, much significance is attached to homosexual relations” (p.387). Although

homosexual acts do not reflect the purpose of mating being reproduction, this could be viewed as

a benefit. This standpoint suggests that sex is not only used as a means for reproduction, but it

also could be a means for survival. Homosexual-sexual acts show that sex is not limited to a

means for reproduction, but is used for other areas as well (Kirkpatrick, 2000). Kirkpatrick

(2000) concludes, “Hypotheses for the evolution of homosexuality will remain of limited

explanatory power, however, as long as they focus on the reproductive functions of the sex act.

Sexual behavior is useful in arenas other than the production of children,” and later adds,

“Homosexuality is an emergent quality of individual selection for same-sex affiliation and has

been a part of the human experience, perhaps all primate experience, since its inception” (p.398).

There are various theories evolutionists believe that promote male homosexuality as a

genetic case. These theories “suggest that a supposed male homosexual gene (or genes) survives

because it confers a reproductive advantage to heterosexuals which keeps the gay gene in

balance against its reproductive liability. That is, heterosexuals who carry a gay gene are more

fecund and carry this gene forward to future generations” (McKnight, 2000, p. 225). Familial

studies have been done that show a high concordance in regards to homosexuality within

families of gay men. These studies reflect the idea of male homosexuality as a genetic case

(McKnight, 2000).

Another theoretical explanation gearing male homosexuality as a genetic case does not

infact state a supposed homosexual gene (or genes) gets passed down through generations, but
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES ON MALE HOMOSEXUALITY 5

instead suggests that homosexuality comes about because of a mutation. Basically, the biological

drive one receives that shows an attraction to members of the opposite sex is interfered with by a

mutation. Another theory suggests that the natural attraction for males is present in both sexes

genotype; however, it is only activated in females and homosexuals. This theory reflects the idea

of evolution claiming that the purpose for this natural attraction to males is intended for females

in order to produce offspring (Miller, 2000). Miller explains this genetic theory in further depth.

A human’s sex is determined off of whether or not a Y chromosome is received. Because of this,

it is believed the genetic makeup that makes one attracted to men must be found on a

chromosome other than the Y chromosome. In few cases, this attraction factor is activated in the

small population of homosexual males, where it is typically inactivated in males (Miller, 2000).

All theories discussed above agree on the concept that male homosexuality has been

prevalent within the human race, both in regards to social construction and biologically, for

many centuries. However, cultures vary in regards to their revolutionary time period male

homosexuality has been accepted in society. Looking at the formation of this revolutionary time

period in the UK, Chaline (2010) divides it in to four historical phases. The 1950s through the

1960s is referred to as “leather subculture,” and following these decades is the 1970s through the

1980s. This time period is referred to as “leather institutions.” During these two time periods,

male homosexuals began “adopting the leatherman-biker ethic” (Chaline, 2010, p. 344). During

these time periods, gay media material was not easy to get a hold of, as public sexuality was seen

as illegal. Because of this, homosexual interactions had to take place in places such as private

parties and private clubs for example. The following decade, the 1990s, marks the

commercialization of homosexuality. During this time period, the very first internet chat rooms

aimed for homosexuals were being made available to the public through the internet. This
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES ON MALE HOMOSEXUALITY 6

opened the door for many homosexuals to start venturing away from the identity of a

leatherman-biker. The final phase Chaline recognizes marks all decades following the 1990s.

This phase is known as a pluralization of homosexuals. This phase marks the beginning of

mainstreaming homosexual practices and acceptance of them. This is when homosexuals started

being portrayed in the media and became more common in society as well. Homosexuals no

longer had to have connections to private events in order to engage in homosexual practices and

express themselves freely in the open. This final stage not only made homosexuality practices

acceptable for those who are homosexual, but also for those who are not. (Chaline, 2010)

Chaline’s four phases of this revolutionary time period in the UK show somewhat of a social

constructivism standpoint on homosexuality.

By looking at the various standpoints theories contain in regards to male homosexuality,

it can be concluded that there is no right or wrong answer as to where the evolution of

homosexuality began. There are many more theories and hypotheses not discussed above.

Between theories that male homosexuality is viewed as a social construction and male

homosexuality being viewed as biological, there is evidence suggesting both may be true.

However, to this day there is no one theory that is globally recognized as the correct theory

explaining the evolution of male homosexuality.

Although no one knows the exact evolution of male homosexuality, one thing that can be

agreed on is that in today’s society homosexuality is being recognized more commonly than ever

before. Male homosexuality is being portrayed openly in the media and out in the public in

general. It is not uncommon to turn on the television to a family-friendly station and see male

homosexual relationships, just as it is not uncommon to see male homosexual relationships at the

local movie theater, for example. Although homosexuality is finally being publically recognized
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES ON MALE HOMOSEXUALITY 7

in society, it has not always been this way as can be seen through Chaline’s recent studies. Some

theorists stand by their view that homosexuality was socially constructed within cultures.

However, there is also evidence that male homosexuality lies in genetic makeup, ultimately

making homosexuality biological. Although there are various theories in regards to the evolution

of male homosexuality in attempt to understand the origins of same-sex behavior, one thing

remains the same: there is not one right or wrong answer proven to be behind the evolution of

male homosexuality.
EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES ON MALE HOMOSEXUALITY 8

References

Adriaens, P. R., & De Block, A. (2006). The evolution of a social construction: The
case of male homosexuality. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 49(4), 570-
585. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2006.0051

Chaline, E. R. (2010). The construction, maintenance, and evolution of gay SM

sexualities and sexual identities: A preliminary description of gay sm sexual
identity practices. Sexualities, 13(3), 338-356.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1363460709363323

Kirkpatrick, R. C. (2000). The evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current

Anthropology, 41(3), 385-413. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.er.lib.k-
state.edu/docview/619535132?accountid=11789

McKnight, J. (2000). Editorial: The origins of male homosexuality. Psychology,

Evolution & Gender, 2(3), 223-228.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616660010024391

Miller, E. M. (2000). Homosexuality, birth order, and evolution: Toward an

equilibrium reproductive economics of homosexuality. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 29(1), 1-34. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.er.lib.k-
state.edu/docview/205926397?accountid=11789

Trumbach, R. 1998. Sex and the gender revolution. Vol. 1. Heterosexuality and the
third gender in Enlightenment London. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.