Having a belief is one thing. But having an attachment with a belief is whole another thing. An attachment with our belief system makes us adamant and stubborn. To an extent, it is alright to be adamant and stubborn. Some things never change, as they say. But when it comes down to making our belief system as the basis for others’ inconvenience, that goes way beyond of stubbornness and adamancy. That is called exerting dominance, which is same as colonization done by the British rulers.
However, I don’t intend to write about the period of British colonization. I’m trying to bring out a topic that might interest a certain group of our society and also might offend the foundation of their belief system. But more of that later. Let me address the reason of us getting offended over seemingly new trends, at first. For that, I think I should bluntly let out about the things that I have a problem with or simply things that I don’t appreciate.
I get highly disappointed, when people with privileges execute their art style with an unrealistic reflection of the society. More specifically, the style of music and films that are made in our industry, which are mainly for commercial purpose and nothing else, does not reflect the society we live in. There was a time, when films were believed to focus out the conflicts of our society, to the mass. They were the means to inform and relay strong message of the environment at which they were based on. Same goes for music. The so called “item songs” are so catchy that people usually forget or mostly become unaware of what the lyrics might mean out. “This is a great party song” is what they always say. The objectification of female and male body parts are not supposed to be catchy. It’s supposed to be offensive. But no “It’s a great party song and it will work wonders for the film, commercially”. Having said that, I know not all films in Bollywood portray our society that way. There are those good films and good music which surprises us every year and keeps us optimistic about the future of Bollywood. But these good films and good music fall in the minority and don’t get much recognition as that of those commercialized hit films and hit music.
So that was my rant on one of the things that I have a problem with. It can also be looked as me being ignorant about the mass demands or some other factors which I’m not familiar about. I accept that, and thus I don’t participate in anything destructive, such as condemning the filmmakers or their efforts. Yes I am upfront about some constructive criticism, but I know my limits and withheld myself on the usage of abusive language against them. At the end, the makers are humans and they have the right to create whatever they want and get paid for it. After they make money, they do participate in making some good content and sometimes giving charity, which is noble.
I guess what I was trying to mean out from the rant was how my ignorance clouds my vision to see multiple factors. My ignorance stems from the belief system I have about films and music and how they should be. Whenever my belief system is questioned, I have two choices, either to complain about it, or just accept the things as it is and maybe participate in defending my preferences in a manner where it doesn’t cause any inconvenience for others. Mostly, I choose the latter option. But I’d be lying if I say I don’t complain at all. And that’s why I understand sometimes when most Indian parents, and even some Indian youth, don’t appreciate the lifestyle of homosexuality.
You didn’t see that coming, right? I like to surprise people that way. Anyway, as I was saying. I understand why it is so hard for people to accept two people of the same sex, getting attracted to each other. We all are used to see things as they are being shown from the time we come to our senses. Since the time I came to mine, I was used to see people of opposite sexes getting married or involved in a romantic relationship or getting raped. I’m sure most of my readers feel the same way. I’m sure we were all led to believe that heterosexuality is the only norm. I’m pretty sure I didn’t even know the word “heterosexual”, let alone “homosexual”, before I read about it in my Biology book. No, at that time the syllabus was not about sexual orientation of people. The terms were merely referencing the reproduction process of plants. I could’ve given you specific details but when I searched in google about it, it says “The term ‘homosexual’ is not politically correct for plants”. I never expected that I would get to read such a ridiculous statement. I mean, since when plants started to participate in politics? Did they elect their leaders? Is it orange colored? I’m going to let that sink in and move on.
When homosexuality was first introduced as a sexual preference to us, I remember people around me criticizing and making fun of people who showed “abnormal” traits. Traits like, guys behaving like girls and girls behaving like guys seemed out of ordinary for us. We couldn’t understand what was going on. Probably because we used the word “gender” as a replacement of “sex”, since the word “sex” was treated like any other abusive words. We never considered to understand the concept of gender identity. Because we were fed with an unwanted stigma rather than a necessary information. I might have also been an inconsiderate, ignorant prick at that time. But honestly, I never had any problem with any of it. Some people around me treated these traits as a disease and called out names to those who showed the aforementioned traits. The term “homosexual” was so far off from our understanding, it would be fair to say that our ignorant self didn’t encounter with the concept of “transgender”. Those people whom I mentioned above who identified their gender different than that of their sex, weren’t homosexual, their gender identity just differed than the sex they were assigned to when they were born. Upon a successful medical procedure, they were likely to known as Transgender. But we were all confused, and that confusion brought fear, and fear brought mockery, and mockery brought hatred. That hatred caused multiple levels of inconvenience for those would-be transgender. I was ignorant yes, but I was curious too. My curiosity led me to understand the difference between sexual preferences and gender identity. My understanding upgraded my belief system. Although, most of the people who weren’t flexible enough with their beliefs, are still there fueling their ignorance and only they know when they’re going to accept the new (or maybe revived) lifestyle, which might have something to do with natural selection and evolution. I love it when I bring out unexpected subjects, that don’t seem to be related to each other, out of the blue. If only I could see your faces right now.
Anyway, the question that you might be wondering right now is “What does a sexual preference, specifically homosexuality, has anything to do with evolution and natural selection?” Well, according to some studies, there is no such thing called “Gay genes”. So that must mean that what I’m about to propose may sound like gobbledygook. Well, I assure you, it will make sense somehow once you read and understand it. And I hope it will give you another perspective to see things.
So, I have a couple of reasons to propose for the existence and sustenance of the lifestyle of homosexuality. It contradicts with the study I mentioned earlier, but homosexuality feels like a result of mutation. Now, mutation is usually random, but it works wonders for all species of plants and animals. Especially when it comes to benefit their survival. For example, a Polar bear was evolved from a brown Grizzly bear. A mutation in the genes of a Grizzly bear, led to the fortunate evolution. Why fortunate? Because the color of the Polar bear made it easier for them to hunt for their prey in the harsh climate. If a Grizzly is set loose, it will have significantly lower chances of a successful hunt as it won’t be able to blend with it’s environment, unlike Polar bears, and it will be seen from a good distance by the seals and other animals. Thus making the hunt much more favorable for the Polar bears. No food, no survival. That’s the basic rule in the wild. The mutation helped in the survival of the bear that lived in the arctic regions. Thanks to the intervention of natural selection.
My proposal of homosexuality as the result of mutation is based upon the innate nature of all living organisms: Survival.
Number 1. I believe it strongly, that homosexuality is one of nature’s way to drag the population growth rate down to normalcy. As I have mentioned in my chapter “Utopia”, overpopulation is a major issue and it needs to be balanced out. Homosexuality is doing just that, however miniscule the effects are, but it is there. It will certainly help us when the population growth rate gets decimated and our civilization as a species can survive for a longer period. I don’t think I need to explain how homosexuality could be one contributing factor for population control and the increased longevity of our species. You can figure that out by yourself.
Number 2. To explain this I’d like to walk you through the first sequence of Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece “2001: A space odyssey”.
After about 3 minutes of black screen and strange noise, and the iconic opening shot of the moon, the earth, and the sun aligned in a straight line, with the grand theme music of Richard Strauss’s “Also Sprach Zarathustra” (remade by Alex North for the film), which gives me goosebumps to this date, the sequence titled “The Dawn of Man” starts. I hope you’ve watched the film or at least that particular sequence before you started reading about it. If you haven’t, I suggest you do watch the sequence at first, then read my paragraph later. I don’t want to spoil your perspective for that scene. STOP READING, AND GO WATCH THE SEQUENCE.
GO!
If you watched it before or even now, you will have a better understanding of what I’m about to say, if not, then… well, it’s a free country, you’re entitled to do whatever you want, but there’ll be consequences. I’m just saying.
Anyway, without further ado, let me begin.
In that particular sequence, the director has conveyed what our ancestors were like and how the resemblance of their behavior with ours was so uncanny. In a shot, we see the ancestral monkeys, gathered around the dry landscape, digging the ground, and uprooting handful of grass before eating it. They were sharing their habitat with another species, Tapirs. The monkeys showed hostility towards those tapirs, at various levels. At first, they screamed at those tapirs for coming too close to them and trying to have a bite off of their food. Still those tapirs hung around with no apparent complain. At another shot, one of the monkeys seemed to have gotten a bit more hostile and shoved one approaching tapir away. Regardless of all this, the tapirs kept coming towards the monkeys without any fear. Later, something changed. One of the monkeys, while digging for grass, found itself in the middle of the leftover bones of it’s own kind (which were left by a leopard after it made a monkey, its lunch). The monkey seemed curious about the strange white objects lying around just like that, and started to look at it with a new light. (Cue: The theme music). The monkey picks up one of the bones, plays with it for a while, before discovering it’s power, it’s impact on other bones, and the significance of such an object, with which he had transcended itself to the next level of evolution. He discovered a weapon. With few quick cuts, it was established, that the monkeys had their first kill. One of the tapirs, now ended up dead and the monkeys developed a taste for tapir meat.
The next shot showed what was inevitable. The deadly hostility of the monkeys towards the tapirs, had created a distance between the two groups of animals. As the barrel of monkeys were feasting on the carcass of a tapir, the candle separated itself from the merciless predators and stayed far away from them. Survival instinct made those tapirs realize that it’s better to stay away and live among their own kind, then stay dead.
What I was trying to say, as my point number 2 of homosexuality being the result of a mutation based upon survival, is the dominance of men towards women has grown so much in our society that it is not shocking to see women keeping their distance from men. I know we are not there yet where all women are afraid of all men. I hope that it doesn’t come to that. All I’m saying is that it’s possible if men continue to assert dominance and instill fear in the mind of women, by committing heinous crimes such as rapes, domestic violence, and discrimination. I’m saying that it’s possible that events that occurred more than 5000 years ago, such as the public humiliation of Draupadi, or cutting the nose of Surpanakha or Sita’s attempt to prove her purity by undergoing a fire ordeal, or many more similar events, which followed after untill today, that undignified women as a whole, would make changes in the genes for their survival. I’m saying that it is possible that mutation was a natural response for all the suffering women who endured over the past and even in the present, as we speak, and homosexuality stemmed from it. Women started finding solace and safety among other empathic women (as they are biologically same). That solace and empathy eventually turned into admiration before turning into attraction. When survival is at stake, nature does some random manipulation within us, I’m sure you all would agree to this, at least.
Now, you might wonder, that even if the stated possibility is considered valid for a second, that would make homosexuality only a women thing. Why some men exhibit homosexual traits, then?
Well, we all know that our embryonic development started without the activation of Y-chromosome. In simple words, we all started off as a female, phenotypically or physically speaking. After about 5-6 weeks of embryonic development, the Y-chromosome gets either activated or not, depending on various factors (about which I’m reluctant to do research, as it has nothing to do with my point I’m trying to prove). Mutation happens way before the given time period. Actually it happens during fertilization i.e. when the sperm and egg cells combines and forms a zygote. So yes, the homosexual trait already settles in, regardless of the sex of the embryo. Thus, even if it is a boy, if the said mutation takes place, he would grow up to get attracted towards other men. Empathy would work here too and it leads up to attraction, just like with women.
I know, whatever I’m proposing, it seems far-fetched. But there is a possibility of it, and I couldn’t deny it, that’s why I had to write it down. Regardless of it’s scientific accuracy, I would like to say this to all my homosexual readers. I hope my analysis of the subject didn’t offend you. I, honestly, don’t see why it would. If anything, this chapter suggests, that you all are as natural as anyone else on this universe. Keep that in mind, and start living to the fullest. Time to come out of the closet. Time to set up some new parameters of our belief system. At the end, we are all naturally selected to survive. Our adaptation to changes will help us in the battle of survival.
In the word of Charles Robert Darwin, “In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment.”
Or as we all say is in a simple manner “Survival of the fittest”.
Comments