In Defense of Life-Mates
When
reading one of my stories, it’s pretty obvious - giant dog on your
chest kind of obvious - that I enjoy putting my characters in 'together
forever' kind of situations. I like
together-forever stories, especially when the forever is unexpected. Or
unwanted. Two people in a romantic situation that’s not entirely based
on their own free will?
Instant happy.
'Together
for tonight' or 'together as good fuck-buddies' is fun, too, don't get
me wrong. But I leave that to people who are, frankly, better
at writing it. I do best with the x-rated fairy tales that
gives us happily ever after, emphasis on the ‘ever after.’
What
can I say, Disney warped me at an early age. Or perhaps I warped
Disney. It’s a bit of a toss up.
Since I don't
usually write completely human
characters, I get to bind my couples together in ways that transcend
what regular ole humans get to experience; that gets my rocks off like
you wouldn’t believe. Life-mated, bonded, soul bound –
whatever you want to call it, I revel in that like a dieter sucking
down a super-fudge chocolate cake.
But
periodically I’ll come across arguments against this particular
scenario as it applies to gay couples. Not heterosexual
couples, mind you, just gay ones. According to the argument,
mating is about Procreation.
Gay couples wouldn’t have the same
biological imperative, or the ability to form the same type of
'bond.' Homosexuality is a genetic dead end. So if a magical
or physical bond could be formed, it would only makes sense if it
existed between heterosexual couples.
My usual
response to that is: uh….what?
Yes, this kind of
logic tends to make me sputter. It’s so far from the way I think that
it takes me a minute to believe someone actually said it. Because the
above argument boils down to this: even though homosexuality
and heterosexuality are part of human biology, that couldn’t possibly
be true of another species.
I
have to shake my head. Roll my eyes. Make a catty aside. But not too
catty, or I lose my goody-two-shoes license.
It
seems to me that how a creature experiences his ‘sex and mating’ has
more to do with his species than his sexual orientation.
Seriously, our species needs to procreate too, does it not?
Yet our genetics have handed us not two sides of a sex coin, but a
freaking 12 sided die of sexuality with a game board
attached. And it doesn’t change all that much about the
basics of how our bodies work.
All of us experience
our sexuality in basic, human ways. We have a
physical
response. We feel desire, the pulse races, the eyes dilate,
the heart beats faster, and we get wet or hard, or both. We touch. We
orgasm. We fall in love and form emotional bonds.
Being
straight or gay doesn’t seem to affect the basic biological responses
to arousal and sex, it just affects our ability to make a kid.
So
why would another species be different? What, a species that
forms life-long bonds has a biology that’s immune from this genetic
facet of existence? Homosexuality isn’t something that’s part of any
other population’s experiences?
I don’t
buy it.
In fact, to add strength to the premise that
gay couples would form the same types of bonds as straight couples, no
matter the species, I point you to the animal kingdom. Quite a number
of species have scientifically
recorded cases of both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Among them
are animals with all sorts of mating habits, including those that mate
for life.
I always love the flamingo
example.* Two flamingos stay together as a couple and raise babies, and
they do it whether they are gay or straight. In fact, get this,
flamingo chicks do better if they have two daddies, because the male
flamingo is the one who claims territory. Gay
flamingos will adopt (okay, steal) eggs from other flamingo couples and
raise them. And since they have twice as much territory as a
heterosexual flamingo couple, they have twice as many resources, so
their baby starts off with an increased chance at survival.
Rock
on, my pink, feathered, gay brethren.
Flamingos are
a fantastic example of why biology is not as simple as ‘making babies.’
It’s survival of a species. If a couple’s abilities to make babies was
the sole factor used to tell how well a species survives, rabbits would
rule the planet. In other words, procreation is not the be all, end all
of relationships, even relationships based on ‘instinct.’
With
so many examples of various ‘norms’ of sexual behavior on our planet,
to me it not only seems possible, it seems likely that other
species, imaginary or not, would have sexual behaviors that apply to
all their members. That’s the way it works here, after all.
There are species whose members fuck once and move on (bears, the
sluts), species that have females with false penises (I’m lookin’ at
you, hyenas), species where the males gets pregnant (seahorses, you
adorable mpreg bastards, you), and of course, species whose couples
stay together the rest of their lives (way to go, eagles).
Pretty
damn awesome, in my opinion. It's setting a good example for all us
erotica writers. I think the animal
kingdom is giving us a message: write about any and every conceivable
sexual practice or bond, and somewhere, some
species probably
already has it. And even if they don't, I'm sure there's room for one
more imaginary species and their own version of life-mates, gay or
straight.
*
Curious to know
more about the sex lives of flamingos and other animals? Oh come on,
admit it, you’re a tiny bit curious, aren’t you? Check it out.
http://secretsexlives.blogspot.com/2007/05/gay-flamingos-pick-up-chick.html
*****
© 2010,
Twisted Hilarity. All rights
reserved.
To contact me: Twisted@TwistedHilarity.com
*****