I just read an interesting article that puts forth the following argument: “[T]here’s a continuum between affection and sexuality.” I happen to agree with this argument because I believe that the various behavioral systems—attachment, caregiving(receiving), and sex—interact in a dynamic way forming what I call a Grand Bowlbian Attachment Environment or GBAE. I have talked about GBAE in earlier posts. The article I read is by Macrina Cooper-White and is entitled Homosexuality May Have Evolved In Humans Because It Helps Us Bond, Scientists Say. Cooper-White’s article profiles work being conducted by evolutionary psychology researchers at the University of Portsmouth in England. In my mind I often substitute the word “bond” with the word “attach.” Ergo, I was intrigued to learn how homosexuality—viewed from an evolutionary perspective—might shed light not only on bonding and attachment, but also on my Grand Bowlbian Attachment Environment.
Now, before I go on I should point out that GBAE is not a new idea. In fact, Bowlby often talked about how the various behavioral systems interacted and formed continuums if you will. In her 1999 article entitled Preventing Teenage Pregnancy: Contributions from Attachment Theory (contact the Foundation for a copy), Carole Pistole talks about how psychological patterns centered on unfulfilled attachment needs early in life often are played out within the sexual behavioral system during the teen years. As Pistole makes clear this type of attachment–sexuality continuum often includes unintended teen pregnancy. Back to the Cooper-White article.
Cooper-White points out that homosexuality in both humans and many animal species has baffled evolutionary researchers. Traditional evolutionary theory holds that traits are selected for in such a way as to insure the reproductive success of the individual. Simply, traditional evolutionary theory does not account for selection in the direction of homosexuality where there is no opportunity for reproductive success. From a traditional evolutionary perspective, homosexuality makes no sense.
Now, there’s a progressive version of evolutionary theory that holds that selection also moves in the direction of a group. In other words, according to progressive evolutionary theory, selection may operate in such a way as to insure the reproductive success of the group, not just the individual. Groups often studied are families, clans, and even small villages. Suffice it to say that the individual versus group selection battle wages on.
The researchers at the University of Portsmouth in England wanted to see if they could make sense of homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective. What they found was the possibility that homosexual behavior could serve the purpose of strengthening social bonds. It would seem that selection in the direction of homesexuality supports a group selection position. Conside the following quote from the article:
“From an evolutionary perspective, we tend to think of sexual behavior as a means to an end for reproduction,” Dr. Diana Fleischman, an evolutionary psychologist at the university and one of the researchers, said in a written statement. “However, because sexual behavior is intimate and pleasurable, it is also used in many species, including non-human primates, to help form and maintain social bonds. We can all see this in romantic couples who bond by engaging in sexual behavior even when reproduction is not possible.”
It would seem that selection in the direction of homosexuality not only supports a group perspective but it also supports the idea that there is a larger environment or system that holds sexuality, attachment, and caregiving(receiving). Homosexuality tends to support the idea that evolution selects in the direction of complex systems that include such continuums as sexuality and attachment. If we believe in such a position then we can no longer talk about sex divorced from attachment, attachment divorced from caregiving(receiving), or even sex divorced from caregiving(receiving).
On a bit of a side note, a few years back I attended a workshop entitled Current Trends in Psychopharmacology. The presenter, pharmacist and licensed counselor Thomas Smith, told us that the popular press glosses over the fact that the longterm failure rate for ED (erectile dysfunction) treatments is rather high (approaching 50 or 60 percent). Why? Well, Smith told us that most ED treatments only address the mechanics of sexual behavior without regard for attachment, bonding, or intimacy behavior. The presenter suggested that, once in therapy, the lion’s share of a man’s ED problems are often traced back to issues concerning attachment, bonding, and intimacy. After the mechanical fun is over, problems within the areas of attachment and caregiving(receiving) remain. This fits with Pistole’s idea that to fully understand teen pregnancy, one must look at early attachment patterns. In another workshop—Sexuality, Intimacy & Aging—the presenter, Barry McCarthy, told us that a reduction in erectile function was natural and should be viewed as an opportunity to focus on bonding, intimacy, and caregiving(receiving). By focusing simply on the mechanics of erectile function we overlook the possibility that we operate within and are motivated by complex behavioral systems or environments.
In closing, it may well be that homosexuality gives evidence for the possibility that evolution is selecting in the direction of complex psychological systems that consist of behavioral system environments (such as my GBAE). If you believe in this position then “reproductive impossibility” could be viewed as privileging other areas of an overall behavioral system. I could be way off base but maybe this view frames the behavior of religious devotees who make vows of celibacy so as to form a closer bond with God. I’m reminded of a great article by Lee Kirkpatrick entitled Attachment and Religious Representations and Behavior. Kirkpatrick’s article has a great section entitled God As an Attachment Figure. Sure, we definitely need reproductive success, but it would appear that success within complex behavioral environments is also needed. It may well turn out that individual and group also fall on a continuum.
Homosexuality Sheds Light On Grand Bowlbian Attachment Environment (GBAE)
I just read an interesting article that puts forth the following argument: “[T]here’s a continuum between affection and sexuality.” I happen to agree with this argument because I believe that the various behavioral systems—attachment, caregiving(receiving), and sex—interact in a dynamic way forming what I call a Grand Bowlbian Attachment Environment or GBAE. I have talked about GBAE in earlier posts. The article I read is by Macrina Cooper-White and is entitled Homosexuality May Have Evolved In Humans Because It Helps Us Bond, Scientists Say. Cooper-White’s article profiles work being conducted by evolutionary psychology researchers at the University of Portsmouth in England. In my mind I often substitute the word “bond” with the word “attach.” Ergo, I was intrigued to learn how homosexuality—viewed from an evolutionary perspective—might shed light not only on bonding and attachment, but also on my Grand Bowlbian Attachment Environment.
Now, before I go on I should point out that GBAE is not a new idea. In fact, Bowlby often talked about how the various behavioral systems interacted and formed continuums if you will. In her 1999 article entitled Preventing Teenage Pregnancy: Contributions from Attachment Theory (contact the Foundation for a copy), Carole Pistole talks about how psychological patterns centered on unfulfilled attachment needs early in life often are played out within the sexual behavioral system during the teen years. As Pistole makes clear this type of attachment–sexuality continuum often includes unintended teen pregnancy. Back to the Cooper-White article.
Cooper-White points out that homosexuality in both humans and many animal species has baffled evolutionary researchers. Traditional evolutionary theory holds that traits are selected for in such a way as to insure the reproductive success of the individual. Simply, traditional evolutionary theory does not account for selection in the direction of homosexuality where there is no opportunity for reproductive success. From a traditional evolutionary perspective, homosexuality makes no sense.
Now, there’s a progressive version of evolutionary theory that holds that selection also moves in the direction of a group. In other words, according to progressive evolutionary theory, selection may operate in such a way as to insure the reproductive success of the group, not just the individual. Groups often studied are families, clans, and even small villages. Suffice it to say that the individual versus group selection battle wages on.
The researchers at the University of Portsmouth in England wanted to see if they could make sense of homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective. What they found was the possibility that homosexual behavior could serve the purpose of strengthening social bonds. It would seem that selection in the direction of homesexuality supports a group selection position. Conside the following quote from the article:
It would seem that selection in the direction of homosexuality not only supports a group perspective but it also supports the idea that there is a larger environment or system that holds sexuality, attachment, and caregiving(receiving). Homosexuality tends to support the idea that evolution selects in the direction of complex systems that include such continuums as sexuality and attachment. If we believe in such a position then we can no longer talk about sex divorced from attachment, attachment divorced from caregiving(receiving), or even sex divorced from caregiving(receiving).
On a bit of a side note, a few years back I attended a workshop entitled Current Trends in Psychopharmacology. The presenter, pharmacist and licensed counselor Thomas Smith, told us that the popular press glosses over the fact that the longterm failure rate for ED (erectile dysfunction) treatments is rather high (approaching 50 or 60 percent). Why? Well, Smith told us that most ED treatments only address the mechanics of sexual behavior without regard for attachment, bonding, or intimacy behavior. The presenter suggested that, once in therapy, the lion’s share of a man’s ED problems are often traced back to issues concerning attachment, bonding, and intimacy. After the mechanical fun is over, problems within the areas of attachment and caregiving(receiving) remain. This fits with Pistole’s idea that to fully understand teen pregnancy, one must look at early attachment patterns. In another workshop—Sexuality, Intimacy & Aging—the presenter, Barry McCarthy, told us that a reduction in erectile function was natural and should be viewed as an opportunity to focus on bonding, intimacy, and caregiving(receiving). By focusing simply on the mechanics of erectile function we overlook the possibility that we operate within and are motivated by complex behavioral systems or environments.
In closing, it may well be that homosexuality gives evidence for the possibility that evolution is selecting in the direction of complex psychological systems that consist of behavioral system environments (such as my GBAE). If you believe in this position then “reproductive impossibility” could be viewed as privileging other areas of an overall behavioral system. I could be way off base but maybe this view frames the behavior of religious devotees who make vows of celibacy so as to form a closer bond with God. I’m reminded of a great article by Lee Kirkpatrick entitled Attachment and Religious Representations and Behavior. Kirkpatrick’s article has a great section entitled God As an Attachment Figure. Sure, we definitely need reproductive success, but it would appear that success within complex behavioral environments is also needed. It may well turn out that individual and group also fall on a continuum.