[PDF Download] The evolution of human pair bonding friendship and sexual attraction 1st edition mich
The Evolution of Human Pair Bonding Friendship and Sexual Attraction 1st Edition Michael R. Kauth
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/the-evolution-of-human-pair-bonding-friendship-and-s exual-attraction-1st-edition-michael-r-kauth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
The Spaces Between Us: A Story of Neuroscience, Evolution, and Human Nature Michael S.A. Graziano
The Evolution of Human Pair-Bonding, Friendship, and Sexual Attraction
The Evolution of Human Pair-Bonding, Friendship, and Sexual Attraction presents an evolutionary history of romantic love, male-female pair-bonding, same-sex friendship, and sexual attraction, drawing on sexuality research, gay and lesbian studies, history, literature, anthropology, and evolutionary science.
Employing evolutionary theory as a framework, close same-sex friendship is examined as an adaptive trait that has harnessed love, affection, and sexual pleasure to navigate same-sex environments for both men and women, ultimately benefting their reproductive success and promoting the inheritance of traits for friendship. Chapters consider the desire to form close same-sex friendships and ask if this is embedded in our biology, concluding that most humans have the capacity to form loving, meaningful, and sexual relationships with men and women.
This book takes on a unique interdisciplinary approach and is essential reading for those studying and working in sexuality research, anthropology, sociology, evolutionary psychology, and gay and lesbian studies. It will also be of interest to marriage and family therapists as well as sex therapists.
Dr. Michael Kauth is Director of LGBT Health in the Department of Veterans Affairs and Professor of Psychiatry at Baylor College of Medicine. He has authored several papers and books on LGBT veteran health, implementation science, and the evolution of sexual attraction.
The Evolution of Human Pair-Bonding, Friendship, and Sexual Attraction
Love Bonds
Michael R. Kauth
First published 2021 by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
The right of Michael R. Kauth to be identifed as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Kauth, Michael R., author.
Title: The evolution of human pair-bonding, friendship, and sexual attraction: love bonds/Michael R. Kauth.
Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifers: LCCN 2020026680 | ISBN 9780367427245 (hardback) |
ISBN 9780367427269 (paperback) | ISBN 9780367854614 (ebook)
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020026680
ISBN: 978-0-367-42724-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-42726-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-85461-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India
2.1 General Timeline of Hominin Evolution
Tables
3.1 Voluntary Interpersonal Relationships Among Unrelated Individuals by Level of Intimacy and Duration
3.2 Evidence Supporting Devoted Male Friendships
4.1 Devoted Same-Sex Friendships from Early Civilizations in Mesopotamia through Advanced Civilizations in Greece, Italy, China, and Japan
5.1 National Studies of Sexual Orientation Identity and Same-Sex Contact
Chapter 1
Initial Introductions
Human relationships fascinate me, particularly erotic and loving relationships both in the present and the past. I am curious how people have related to each other to survive and fnd comfort, safety, or meaning in their lives, along with pleasure. Specifcally, I am curious why humans so readily form romantic pair-bonds and close friendships. Both are passionate, intimate, long-term attachments. Are they related? What are the functions of romantic pair-bonds and close friendships? Academic disciplines either have very different explanations for these phenomena or none at all. There are few common threads across disciplines. Some disciplines, like the evolutionary sciences, focus explanations on the far distant past and on reproduction, while others, like sexual science, concentrate on the present and on sexual attraction and pleasure, mostly ignoring human evolution and history. Other disciplines, like history, simply tell the story in context, often with a sociopolitical narrative, and still others, like gender studies, critical theory (à la Foucault), and some gay and lesbian studies, see human reproductive or mating pair-bonds and close friendships as unique to each culture but in relationship to social conventions, with no underlying or universal basis. I fnd these explanations incongruent, incomplete, and unsatisfying. In this book, I attempt to present an integrated, interdisciplinary account of the origin, function, and history of human reproductive, mating pair-bonds and devoted same-sex friendships across cultures. I offer a narrative analysis that integrates several disciplines. I view erotic/sexual attraction and love as the mechanisms that created these critical, intimate, long-term attachments that have been so prevalent and successful through human history. Social customs then emerged to further support these vital relationships. I also hope to demonstrate that Western cultural centrism and current conceptions of marriage, friendship, and sexuality—how we view ourselves—have blinded us and misled scientists into ignoring or reimagining the past to conform to our narrow modern views about sexual kinds of people. In the end, I propose a paradigm shift away from siloed academic disciplines and contemporary Western centrism and toward an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to human sexuality, relationships, and evolution. This is easier said than done,
but much more interesting than explaining human phenomena from a singular perspective.
With regards to human relationships, humans are remarkably social creatures who, for the most part, like to be together, unlike some other animals. Humans often maintain close relationships with kin all their lives and even stay connected to extended kin. Humans also show an amazing affnity for close associations with non-relatives. Generally, people like other people and prefer to live in groups, close to each other. There are individual exceptions, of course, and people often distrust out-groups. However, cooperative, personal human associations are more the rule than the exception. Other species live in groups. Many species of fsh live in schools. Many kinds of birds fock together. Dolphins, penguins, famingoes, elephants, horses, wolves, deer, baboons, and chimpanzees also prefer to live in groups. Living in groups is an effective strategy to protect against predators. Group living also facilitates food acquisition and care for vulnerable young. Anthropologists generally agree that humans live in groups for many of the same reasons that beneft other species that live in groups (Gurven, 2012; Marlowe, 2012).
Beyond just group-living, humans pursue close companionship in at least two specifc forms. Throughout history, humans have formed passionate, intimate, long-term relationships with non-relatives in mating pair-bonds and devoted friendships. Other species sometimes form long-term mating pair-bonds. Many birds, for example, mate for life. Mammals do this less often, preferring other mating strategies. Less than 10% of mammals form long-term mating pair-bonds (Lukas & Clutton-Brock, 2013). Individuals in many species also form long-term preferential alliances in what looks like friendships. For instance, dolphins, elephants, and chimpanzees frequently form long-term peer alliances (Seyfarth & Cheney, 2012). Humans, however, form long-term different-sex (male-female) mating pair-bonds and devoted same-sex friendships on an extraordinary scale.
Both different-sex mating pair-bonds (or marriage) and same-sex friendships are pervasive across human cultures and take various forms (Beer, 2001; Brown, 1991). I am most interested in socially monogamous mating pair-bonds as erotic and loving relationships. Social monogamy refers to committed togetherness, not sexual exclusivity, but more on that in later chapters. Anthropologists note that, in many cultures, humans spend a considerable amount of time and energy longing for, locating, choosing, and keeping a reproductive mate. Volumes have been written about this process. Whole families and the community are sometimes involved in these efforts, and elaborate public ceremonies formalize and celebrate the pairbond. Marriage is the cultural construction for formal mating pair-bonds, but marriage is quite varied. Every culture has a tradition of marriage. The United States has one of the highest annual marriage rates (6.9/1,000) in the world, with nearly 2.5 million marriages each year (Centers for Disease
Control, 2017a). Among European countries, Lithuania boasts the highest annual marriage rate at 7.5 marriages per 1,000 citizens (Eurostat, 2019). Globally, formal marriage ceremonies, or weddings, are a $300 billion-dollar industry that employs approximately 750,000 people (Bourque, 2017). Although marriage rates have been on the decline in the United States and worldwide in recent years, marriage is far from disappearing. Increasingly, couples opt to live together and even start a family without the formal ritual of marriage. Living together in a committed family relationship is a mating pair-bond just the same.
Anthropologists also show that close personal relationships also take a variety of forms, just like marriage. I am most interested in affectionate long-term attachments between unrelated same-sex individuals that are both erotic and loving. I will argue that friendship may be just as valuable and necessary as marriage, although friendship as a topic has received far less social and scholarly attention than fnding a reproductive mate. In many past cultures, devoted male friendships—passionate, intimate, long-term attachments—have been formalized in public ceremonies and recognized by the community (Williams, 1992a). Across historical cultures, devoted male friends have been called “sworn brothers”, “adoptive brothers”, “blood brothers”, or other terms (Miller & Donovan, 2009/2013). Historians have recorded devoted male friendships in many past cultures, and uniformly these friendships have been revered. While people today value good friends, contemporary cultures no longer recognize “sworn brothers” or romantic same-sex friendships as in previous cultures. Modern friendships have been de-eroticized, while people themselves have become sexualized based on their sexual attractions. Today, Western people often identify themselves by their sexual attractions, consistent with the modern idea that people are their sexuality (Halperin, 2012). This idea is perpetuated, accidentally or on purpose, by sexual scientists who focus on individual differences between sexual kinds of people. Conventional sexual identities include heterosexual (different-sex attracted), gay or lesbian (same-sex attracted), and bisexual (both different- and same-sex attracted). Less conventional, idiosyncratic identity terms narrow or broaden the scope of one’s attractions, such as asexual (no attraction), queer (not exclusively heterosexual), pansexual (attraction to people regardless of gender), and even sapiosexual (attraction to highly intelligent people). Because people have been sexualized and friendships have been de-eroticized in contemporary cultures, friends may fnd themselves worrying that affection or intimacy will be interpreted by their friend or by observers as “gay”, thus, jeopardizing the friendship.
Gender and gay and lesbian scholars remind us that, for the past several hundred years in Western culture, same-sex sexual attraction and behavior, especially among males, have been severely stigmatized and punished. While Western cultures have experienced tremendous social changes in
recognizing the rights and dignity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people in recent years, these are relatively recent changes, and not everyone has benefted. Gay and queer kids still get kicked out of their homes, and sexual orientation-motivated violence is the third most common hate crime in the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2019). In many states, LGBTQ Americans can be fred from their jobs because their employer dislikes their sexuality or gender expression. Few states have LGBTQ discrimination protections (Freedom for All Americans, 2018). At the same time, conservative religious groups demand the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people as “religious freedom” (People for the American Way, 2019).
Anthropologists and gay and lesbian historians have noted that contemporary Western culture conceptualizes friendship and marriage quite differently than it did even a few hundred years ago and differently from most historical cultures. For instance, contemporary culture allows mixed sex socializing and friendships, as well as gay marriages. Today, Western people often think of their spouse as their best friend and view their best friend more like a cousin who is fun to have around, but not too familiar. Given that marriage and friendships have long histories, are these recent social changes in Western culture simply superfcial? Of course, cultures defne marriage and friendships somewhat differently. However, knowing human cultural histories can aide in spotting persistent social characteristics from variable ones. Knowing human cultural histories also helps in identifying beliefs, customs, and discourse that create a social reality for any particular culture and point in time. What, if anything, is persistent about human mating pair-bonds and devoted same-sex friendships through history?
The evolutionary sciences attempt to explain how we got to this point by looking at the distant past: that is, the reason why humans evolved to look, think, and act like we do is a function of solving ancient problems of survival and reproduction. Characteristics that have persisted through history and across cultures, like reproductive mating pair-bonds and devoted same-sex friendships, may be adaptive. Backward engineering these traits may reveal clues to specifc challenges faced by our early ancestors in their environments. Thus, an evolutionary analysis of human mating pair-bonds and devoted friendships can help us understand our development and how we came to think and behave in certain ways. An evolutionary analysis provides a broader, deeper context of human development. However, an evolutionary analysis cannot tell us if evolved traits are adaptive today because the environment that most people live in today is quite different from the environment of our early ancestors. In fact, some adaptive traits, evolved in ancient, long-gone environments, may confict with life in contemporary environments. If evolved human traits may not be adaptive today because our modern manufactured environment is so different from the savannahs
of Africa where the traits developed, then why undertake an evolutionary analysis? Is an evolutionary analysis really worthwhile? I think it is. We are better informed when we understand that human bodies and brains are works in progress but adapted to environments that are wildly different from today. Our bodies and brains are constantly playing catch-up with the demands of the ecology, and now our social culture and technology are evolving at an ever accelerating pace. Knowing human evolutionary history can help us be more understanding when evolved human traits confict with changing social environments and social values.
Academic disciplines like evolutionary biology, anthropology, developmental biology, paleontology, archaeology, genetics, evolutionary psychology, ancient history, classical studies, literature, art history, sexual science, gender studies and critical theory, and gay and lesbian studies, all referenced in this text, use different methodologies to examine different phenomena at different points in time based on different assumptions. In many ways, these disciplines present partial truths. No discipline has the Truth, although the rigor and precision of some disciplines allow them to be more confdent of what they know. Each discipline is a little like the blind men and the elephant; it can only describe the part of the phenomenon it examines. No one experiences the entire animal. In a sense, I am collecting and integrating perspectives from different disciplines to piece together a more comprehensive picture of the origin, function, and history of human mating pair-bonds and same-sex friendships. I am looking for common threads through disciplines and historical cultures. I approach this task cautiously, because interpreting fndings from different felds is fraught with risk. What is more, the pieces of data come from different puzzles. While there are links between puzzles, the fnal puzzle picture, like the one presented here, can only be strongly suggestive because the ft is imperfect, and there are many missing pieces.
In this book, I examine human different-sex mating pair-bonds and devoted same-sex friendships as adaptations. From an evolutionary framework, the adaptive value of male-female mating pair-bonds seems obvious since these relationships directly beneft reproductive success, although there are alternative mating strategies. The adaptive value of devoted same-sex friendships may be less obvious but makes sense in the context of sex-segregated environments. Drawing on fndings from several evolutionary sciences, I will show that at least since the early division of labor, and perhaps long before that, humans have largely lived in sex-segregated environments. In these environments, devoted same-sex friendships directly benefted survival by facilitating navigation of the same-sex social environment to defend against threat and acquire resources. Further, devoted same-sex friendships likely indirectly benefted reproductive success by facilitating the acquisition of a quality mate as well as resources to protect and support one’s family. Over time, these adaptive traits spread through the population, and
social customs developed to reinforce marriage and close friendships. As a result, the desires to have a reproductive mate and form a family and make a close, long-term friend is written in our biology, while culture determines the forms these attachments take.
As part of this story, I also explore how evolution exploited erotic/sexual attraction, love, and sexual pleasure to support both human mating pairbonds and same-sex friendships. Drawing on anthropological studies and feld observations, I will show the extensive prevalence of devoted male friendships among contemporary hunter-gatherers and among native people upon frst contact. Drawing on ancient history, classical studies, and literature, I will show a long history of devoted male friendships across diverse cultures up to the near present. I will introduce limited evidence of close female friendships because this information is quite scarce. A major implication of these fndings and the idea that devoted same-sex friendships are an adaptation is that most men (and probably most women) have the capacity for attraction to male and female partners. Yet this conclusion runs counter to how Western culture views sexuality and counter to sexual science research that shows most people identify as exclusively heterosexual. How can that be? Drawing on data from sexual science, I will show that sexual arousal patterns for men and women show much more variability than is predicted from self-reports of exclusive attractions. Drawing on gender and gay and lesbian studies, I observe that culture has a lot to do with how people experience sexual attraction (and which kinds) and how they defne themselves. Scientists exist within the same culture and even perpetuate social conventions! In the end, I hope to present a fuller, richer account of reproductive mating pair-bonds, same-sex friendships, and human sexuality.
Building on the Past Work of Scholars
This book builds on the scholarship of many brilliant, insightful experts. While this work is presented in later chapters, I want to highlight a few texts that signifcantly infuenced my thinking about sexual attraction, mating, and friendship. Among these is an engaging history of the evolution of human sexuality by archaeologist Timothy Taylor in The Prehistory of Sex: Four Million Years of Human Sexual Culture. Rather than focus exclusively on reproductive sex, Taylor examined how a range of sexual attractions and behaviors shaped early human culture, especially gender, clothing, religious practices, prostitution, burials, art, and love. Helen Fisher’s Anatomy of Love is another powerfully infuential text that made the case that romantic love is an adaptive trait. Fisher presents an impressive amount of cross-cultural data to support her position. She argues that romantic love facilitated and maintained (at least in the short-term) monogamous male-female human pair-bonds, because pair-bonding benefted raising children to reproductive
age. In her view, long-term pair-bonds enhanced reproductive success among early humans, and love was the glue that held couples together. While Fisher focused on heterosexual (different-sex) love and relationships, obviously gay and lesbian people experience love and form intimate relationships too. This observation suggested to me that romantic love is the glue that bonds all long-term couples. For love to bond effectively, the desire to love and be loved should occur independently of one’s ability to reproduce. Fisher barely noted same-sex love and only briefy mentioned friendship in the 2016 second edition of Anatomy of Love.
An important and easily accessible text on evolutionary psychology is David Buss’s The Evolution of Desire. Using Charles Darwin’s sexual selection theory as a framework, Buss explains how mate choice and mate competition have shaped human bodies, behavior, and psychology. He engagingly describes the impact that ancient evolved traits have on men and women’s intimate relationships today. However, Buss gave only fve pages to samesex attraction and drew no summary conclusions. This suggested to me that Buss was unconvinced that same-sex attraction had any adaptive value but chose not to portray same-sex attraction as maladaptive. For readers new to evolutionary theory, a helpful preface to Buss’ text is psychologist David Geary’s book, Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences, now in its second edition. Geary effectively demonstrates how sexual selection has produced numerous sex differences among humans. Yet to my disappointment, homosexuality is mentioned only twice in the text.
Another infuential text, David Greenberg’s The Construction of Homosexuality is a sprawling early volume on the cultural history of human homosexuality. Sociologist Greenberg argued that wide variability in meaning and form of same-sex attraction and behavior demonstrates that culture defnes our experiences with sexuality. That is, gay/lesbian and straight sexual identities are simply a variation in cultural expressions of sexuality. Greenberg’s broad history of homosexuality provides overwhelming evidence that same-sex relationships have existed across many cultures. By contrast, anthropologist Gilbert Herdt narrowly focused on how homosexuality played constructive roles in making boys into men in early human cultures. In describing contemporary hunter-gatherer societies in Melanesia (Guardians of the Flutes), Herdt produces convincing evidence that homosexuality was part of an ancient ritualized men-making tradition. What is more, this tradition in Melanesia is similar to men-making rituals found among contemporary African hunter-gatherer cultures, although not all contemporary hunter-gatherers share this pattern. Herdt’s work suggested to me that early humans had the capacity for attraction to males and females and that natural selection exploited sexuality for functions other than reproduction. In a classic text, Men in Groups, anthropologist Lionel Tiger proposed that male-male cooperation is an adaptive trait. Tiger effectively argued that
early male hunter-gatherers had to cooperate with each other to maximize their acquisition of game, defend against predators, and protect themselves and the community from hostile outsiders. As a result, boys and men evolved to prefer the company of males. Tiger notes that men generally prefer allmale activities, such as team sports, militias, male living quarters, and male clubs. He strongly implies that cooperative male relationships are enjoyable but stops short of calling them affectionate. Tiger also failed to distinguish between close friendship and associations, and he did not speculate about female cooperation and associations. In a more recent text, A Talent for Friendship: Rediscovery of a Remarkable Trait, John Terrell asserts that ancient male friendships were more than transactional, and they were affectionate and intimate. Terrell presents fascinating ethnographic data on extensive social networks among contemporary hunter-gatherer societies in Melanesia, demonstrating that New Guinea cultures maintained distant friendships across several communities despite inhospitable terrains and geographic isolation. These friendships were largely social and personal, according to Terrell. Yet Terrell does not extend his conclusions to other hunter-gatherer societies and offers no evolutionary theory of friendship. In another recent book that explores the history of personal friendships across cultures, social psychologist Robin Goodwin and others in Personal Relationships Across Cultures also neglected to present a theory of adaptive friendship.
Finally, a hugely infuential text on my thinking about sexuality is French philosopher Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Unarguably, Foucault’s writings about the social construction of sexual orientation changed how academics conceptualize sexuality. Foucault asserts that social discourse in the late nineteenth century invented a new kind of person who was defned by their sexual attraction: The homosexual/gay/ lesbian. Later, in The Invention of Heterosexuality, historian Jonathan Ned Katz completed Foucault’s thought about the invention of sexual kinds of people by describing the origin of the normative heterosexual in contrast to the deviant homosexual. For most of the past 150 years, heterosexuality and homosexuality have functioned as two sides of the same coin. However, I will make the case that sexual attraction is not a coin, and there are no sides. I conceptualize sexual attraction more like a gelatinous substance that mostly (but not entirely) is molded by the social environment. But more on this later. While there are problems with Foucault’s rigid conceptualization of the social construction of sexuality, theorists writing about sexuality must account for the role of social discourse and culture in their evolutionary and biological theories. Simply presenting different sexual beliefs and practices across a few cultures is not enough. Social and evolutionary biological theorists need to explain how their theories account for similarities and differences in human sexuality through history and across cultures.
Similar Ideas about Same-Sex Alliances
In 2000, my own book, True Nature: A Theory of Sexual Attraction, was published. In this text, I proposed that erotic attraction fueled intimate same-sex alliances, benefting both men and women in early hunter-gatherer cultures. I argued that our early ancestors spent much of their time in samesex activities. Within largely sex-segregated environments, individuals who formed alliances with older, higher status individuals and even peers gained social advantages. I argued that erotic alliances directly aided survival within same-sex environments and indirectly facilitated the acquisition of resources necessary for reproductive success, including a mate, food for the family, and childcare. Thus, natural selection favored men and women who formed close same-sex erotic alliances to manage their sex-segregated social environments. At the time, I did not think of erotic alliances as friendships, and I was unaware of the long history of devoted male friendships across cultures. While I proposed that most people have a capacity for sexual attraction to males and females, this idea may have been lost in the lengthy discussion about the persistence of same-sex sexual attraction.
The same year, two scholars in separate journal articles proposed remarkably similar ideas as mine to explain male-male sexual attraction. I was surprised and pleased to discover others thinking along the same lines. In the frst paper, “The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior”, ecologist Rob Craig Kirkpatrick remarked that male homosexuality is too common to be a fuke or mutation. He hypothesized that male homosexuality may have some adaptive function to be so prevalent among humans. Kirkpatrick reviewed three well-known adaptationist theories of male-male sexual attraction—kin selection, parental manipulation, and balanced polymorphism—and examined evidence for each. Briefy, in kin selection theory, non-reproducing same-sex attracted individuals at their own expense beneft the reproductive success of brothers and sisters by contributing to the survival of their siblings’ children. In parental manipulation theory, parents somehow produce children who will not reproduce to advantage their children with greater reproductive value. Lastly, in balanced polymorphism theory, same-sex attraction and different-sex attraction are viewed as two versions of a trait that maintain a stable equilibrium because the heterozygous version is more advantageous than either homozygous versions of the trait. The idea is that the same-sex attraction allele contributes something useful to the phenotype that is missing in the homozygous differentsex alleles alone. Therefore, the trait of same-sex attraction is maintained. After fnding little supportive evidence for these three theories, Kirkpatrick proposed that same-sex attraction might be under direct selection by facilitating male-male alliances that increase survival, resource acquisition, and defense. He viewed male alliances as survival strategies and suggested that sexual pleasure might function to enhance the bond. While mainly focused
on male-male alliances, Kirkpatrick speculated that similar alliances might also directly beneft women. In the concluding lines of his paper, Kirkpatrick (2000) stated: “The evolution of human homosexuality is tied to the benefts of same-sex affliation. Natural selection favors same-sex affection; it must be fundamental for both sexes to desire bonds with partners of both sexes” (p. 398).
In the second paper, “The Evolution of Homoerotic Behavior in Humans”, evolutionary psychologist Frank Muscarella directed his arguments at evolutionary psychologists who have rejected any adaptive value of same-sex behavior because it does not directly beneft reproduction. Muscarella proposed that same-sex alliances, reinforced by erotic behavior, helped early humans of both sexes to survive. He speculated that adolescents would have been highly vulnerable within ancestral communities and young people likely benefted from same-sex alliances. Muscarella argued that adolescents who bonded with older, higher status same-sex individuals, as well as with same-sex peers, would have been more likely to survive. Thus, same-sex alliances would be directly favored by natural selection. He claimed that even same-sex peer alliances would have offered some protection and support and better assured access to food and shelter. What is more, same-sex alliances would have facilitated acquisition of resources such as a mate, thereby indirectly benefting reproduction. Muscarella cited evidence of same-sex alliances among non-human primates and across human cultures in support of his hypothesis. He went on to speculate that exclusive sexual interest in one sex may be due to normal variation in the trait of sexual attraction (Muscarella, 2006). Muscarella also proposed that, like different-sex mating pairs, same-sex alliances most likely would have followed a dominant-submissive structure. Dominant-submissive relationships are based on differences in individuals’ status and role. Such relationships are common in human and non-human animal worlds and not necessarily abusive or exploitive. In many traditional cultures, adult human males have higher status and decision-making authority than either young adult or adolescent males. Adult females and children generally have low status and little social power in traditional cultures, which does not mean that adult females have no voice in the community or never hold positions of power.
Since its publication, Muscarella’s work has received a fair amount of attention and is most closely associated with the Alliance Formation Theory of same-sex sexual behavior. While Muscarella and Kirkpatrick both emphasized sexual behavior and pleasure as the erotic bond within alliances, in my book I placed more emphasis on sexual attraction and love as the adhesive bond among same-sex alliances.
Also, in 2000, Michael Ross and Alan Wells published an insightful paper titled, “The Modernist Fallacy in Homosexual Selection Theories: Homosexual and Homosexual Exaptation in South Asian Society”. Like
Muscarella, Ross and Wells chided evolutionary psychologists for too quickly concluding that same-sex sexuality has no adaptive value because there is no evidence of adaptation observed in modern culture. The pair argued that more traditional settings, such as small villages in South Asia, rather than university campuses in the United States, are more appropriate places to look for the adaptive value of same-sex sexuality. And that is what they did. Ross and Wells then proposed that same-sex behavior evolved from male-male social affliation as an exaptation to directly aide survival within traditional collective cultures. An exaptation is an adaptive trait that has been co-opted for another function. Ross and Wells’ paper further reinforced my own thinking that modern society is too different from traditional cultures to fnd clear evidence of the adaptive benefts of same-sex alliances. More likely, supportive evidence for devoted same-sex friendships as an adaptation can be found in traditional cultures and in the past.
The texts cited above, and others, greatly infuenced my thinking about the evolution of different-sex mating pair-bonds, devoted same-sex friendship, and sexual attraction. Since the publication of True Nature two decades ago, research on these topics has blossomed. We know more about the role of oxytocin on social affliation and romantic love than we did 20 years ago. We know much more about the role of friendship across cultures, as well as the history of homosexuality. We have a better understanding of the prevalence of people with same-sex attractions. We also have a better understanding of practices, relationships, social networks, and culture among contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, which sadly are quickly disappearing. In the past two decades, there has also been a large cultural shift toward greater acceptance of same-sex sexualities and scholarship on sexuality. Twenty years ago, as a non-traditional academic and a federal government employee, I was concerned that writing about sexual attraction, especially same-sex attraction, could mean that I would not be taken seriously by my health research peers. However, I experienced no pushback or rejection, and the cultural climate has steadily improved. Today I have a national leadership role in a federal government health care organization directing policy and the implementation of best practices for the care of military veterans with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and related identities. These days, everyone seems interested in LGBT health. Clinicians want to know what they were not taught in their professional training programs. Researchers now often include questions on sexual orientation and gender identity in their surveys, even if they have no specifc interest in these areas. New academic journals like LGBT Health and Transgender Health have emerged to promote further research. In just a few years, there has been incredible social change, although hostilities against sexual and gender minorities have not disappeared, and scholarship in this area still carries some risk in the current political climate.
Anchor Points
In my view, two main divisions exist within the broad feld of human sexual culture/sexual science. On one side, anthropologists, gender and critical theorists, and gay and lesbian studies scholars largely promote social constructionist perspectives. My choice of words here recognizes that this old academic debate continues in new forms. On the other side, evolutionary biologists and psychologists, neuroscientists, and laboratory researchers largely take empirical scientifc positions. The two sides share little common language, and each side tends to view the other as misinformed at best and the enemy at worst. The stakes are high, and defenses are up. Gender and critical theorists often portray scientifc researchers as biased, oppressive of minorities, and self-serving, while biologically inclined researchers frequently present feminist, gender, and gay studies scholars as unscientifc social change advocates. Clearly, political and social change are not scientifc programs. While social learning is a scientifc theory that is often promoted by constructionists, social constructionism as employed by gender and critical theorists is not a scientifc approach and is even anti-science (Kauth, 2002). As employed by gender and critical theorists, constructionism has functioned as a strategy for disrupting conventional power dynamics in discourse to reveal alternative narratives outside the dominant narrative. At the same time, science is not free from bias. As an evolutionist, historian, and gay man who worries about the slow pace of social change, I appreciate these different perspectives. While the division between science and constructionism presented here is overly simplifed and not new, this contrast is useful for discussing dominant and alternative narratives in human sexuality. More sophisticated versions of constructionist analyses can be found in efforts to show the existence of self-identifed same-sex attracted people at a time when none were thought to exist (e.g., Norton, 1997; Robb, 2003) and in explorations of intimate female friendships and sexuality in previous eras (e.g., Marcus, 2007; Vicinus, 2004), some of which are mentioned later.
Evolutionary theory is the overarching framework with which I will examine human different-sex mating pair-bonds and devoted same-sex friendships. Human bodies and psychology evolved over countless generations to survive the African savannah. Ancient humans also lived in social environments as part of families, small groups, communities, and larger bands. Over a long period of time, ancient human bodies, brains, and personalities evolved to survive the complex social environment that humans created for themselves. Ancient humans who were reproductively successful in these environments passed on their genes and heritable dispositions to their offspring until the offspring became us. While I think I make a convincing argument for the evolution of different-sex mating pair-bonds and devoted same-sex friendships in the forthcoming pages, some may be unpersuaded. Some readers may feel unsettled or annoyed that I have not defned
mating and friendship in the way they do. For skeptical readers, I hope to at least convey some insights that will lead them to question conventional knowledge about marriage, friendship, and sexuality.
This text is not a primer on evolutionary theory, but there are basic tenets of evolutionary theory that I want to make clear from the start. Here they are in a nutshell. By evolutionary theory, I am referring to neo-Darwinian theory that integrates modern genetics. Darwin originally referred to heritable traits that enhanced an organism’s survival and reproduction as adaptations (Darwin, 1859/1958). He posited two explanations for the origin and diversity of species: natural selection and sexual selection. Natural selection is the process whereby particular heritable traits confer a survival and reproductive advantage to their host within an ecology. Those heritable traits are passed on to offspring. Reproductive success refers to the production of offspring who themselves produce offspring, thereby passing on one’s genes and heritable traits. Organisms with adaptive traits will out-reproduce their peers who lack those traits, and the adaptive traits will eventually predominate in the population. A large social brain and the ability to walk upright are adaptive human traits that likely evolved by natural selection. The ecology or physical environment broadly refers to climate, water and food sources, natural shelter and resources, and predators and parasites.
Darwin (1871/1981) proposed sexual selection to explain costly traits and subgroup differences or varieties within a population. Sexually selected traits include brightly colored feathers, large appendages, and ritual courtship displays. Sex differences within a species are sexually selected traits. Darwin advanced two forms of sexual selection: intrasexual (mate competition) and intersexual selection (mate choice). While he reasoned that sexually selected traits persist because they confer a reproductive advantage, some traits may be preferred because they are attention-getting or perceived as beautiful, rather than for any ftness beneft (Prum, 2017). Pendulous human breasts and dangling penises are sexually selected traits that may have no adaptive advantage but were selected because early humans found them pleasing. Besides natural and sexual selection, evolution of a species may also occur through non-adaptive mechanisms, such as neutral (nondetrimental) mutations, genetic drift (changes in allele frequencies due to reduced population), and gene fow (migration). These mechanisms are not the focus of this book.
Robert Trivers’s (1972) perceptive concept of parental investment helped to explain both mate competition and mate choice. Parental investment refers to the costs (time, energy, resources, and lost reproductive opportunities) associated with conceiving, gestating, and raising offspring to reproductive age. In many species, females bear a greater parental investment cost due to having a limited number of eggs, or limited periods of fertility, and a
larger investment of personal resources in reproduction (gestation, feeding young, etc.) than males who mainly contribute sperm and have little to do with raising offspring. Because females have more at risk with each pregnancy, females are choosy in who they mate with. Access to females for mating becomes a limited resource. Female mate choice fuels mate competition among males. While mate competition is generally thought of as male-male competition for a reproductive mate, females may also compete to a lesser extent with other females for a mate, especially when males become choosy because they have an increased parental investment.
Generally, male-male competition for reproductive mates promotes the development of sexual weaponry or ornamentation. Sexual weapons may include large physical size, large sharp teeth, horns, and aggressive behavior to fght rivals. Sexual ornaments can include bright colors, elaborate tails, full manes, and ritualistic behavioral displays to attract a mate’s attention. Male-male competition also contributes to the formation of social hierarchies, dominant-submissive roles, and efforts to gain status (Geary, 2010; Tiger, 1969/1984). To reduce intrasexual aggression and maintain or increase social status, males may form temporary coalitions or longterm alliances with unrelated males to defend against threats and acquire quality resources like food and reproductive mates (Symons, 1979; Tiger, 1969/1984). Female-female competition for a reproductive mate is more evident in species that share parenting, like humans (Trivers, 1972). Shared parenting makes an invested male mate a limited resource. To a lesser degree, female-female competition spawns loose social hierarchies and alliances. More often, female alliances are kinship-based, such as mother-daughter or sister-sister alliances (Geary, 2010). Females may also establish temporary coalitions or long-term alliances, often in response to resource disputes and to defend against male aggression. Generally, female alliances tend to be smaller and less stable than male alliances (Buss, 2003).
An important point about evolutionary theory that people sometimes fnd confusing is that evolutionary theory is concerned with the why of a phenomenon, that is, the ultimate or “real” cause of a trait in the sense of origin in the distant past. If a trait has an adaptive function, this likely occurred tens of thousands or even millions of years ago. On the other hand, theories about male sexual attraction regarding prenatal androgen exposure, genetics, or social learning are concerned with explaining how the phenomenon develops; that is, the proximate or immediate cause of a trait within the organism’s lifetime. As we will see in the next chapter, the ultimate cause of long-term different-sex mating pair-bonds may be that ancient humans who formed mating relationships in this way out-reproduced mating couples that employed alternative strategies. However, the proximate cause of long-term mating pair-bonds might be explained in part as exposure to oxytocin during sexual activity which enhances feelings of affection and love. Proximate
explanations are important. However, knowing the mechanism for a trait’s expression is not the same as knowing the reason for its existence. From an evolutionist perspective, human mating pair-bonds are more than an emotional attachment or response to a social convention. The desire to form an intimate, committed, long-term reproductive relationship with a differentsex mate is the result of an evolved trait that resulted in greater reproductive success for our early ancestors.
Because this text employs evolutionary theory as its framework and reproduction is the mechanism for conveying benefcial heritable traits, I will use “male” and “female” to refer to biological sex and its reproductive functions. Biological sex is usually evident by the presence of a penis or a vagina. The presence of these reproductive organs suggests the likelihood of producing sperm and eggs, respectively. There are other indicators of biological sex and reproductive ability that are important, such as sex chromosomes and internal genitalia. However, in the ancient environment of evolutionary adaptedness, an infant’s external genitals were visible evidence of its sex that everyone could witness. While some people are born with indeterminate or ambiguous genitalia, these are rare cases and peripheral to the story. I will use “man” and “woman” to refer mainly to gender and gender roles. Every culture recognizes men and women and masculine and feminine gender roles, although their meanings vary. Some cultures recognize more than two genders. The fa’afafne of Samoa, for example, represent an alternative gender for individuals with male anatomy and feminine characteristics (and sexual attraction to men) but who do not identify as men or women (Vasey & VanderLaan, 2014). The tombois of Sumatra are individuals with female anatomy and masculine characteristics (and attraction to women) but who do not identify as women (Blackwood, 1999). While not exactly a third gender, Western culture has begun to recognize people whose gender identity or expression is not congruent with their sexual anatomy and sex assigned at birth. Such individuals are often referred to as transgender people (Centers for Disease Control, 2017b). Transgender individuals may identify as transgender men or women, or simply as men or women, or they may use another gender term. My focus in this book is not on gender identity, nor on so-called transgender homosexuality, meaning third- or fourth-gender individuals with male anatomy, feminine or ambiguous gender expression, and sexual attraction to and sexual behavior with masculine men.
This is not a text about homosexuality specifcally, although I will describe many loving same-sex relationships. Given the evolutionary and historical framework of this text, I will use “same-sex” to refer to male-male and female-female relationships and sexuality. “Different-sex” will refer to malefemale relationships and sexuality. I will occasionally use the term “heterosexual” to refer to contemporary male-female mating pair-bonds and use the term “bisexual” when referring to sexual attraction and sexuality with both
males and females. Recently, to improve precision, some sexual scientists have begun to use the terms androphilia and gynephilia to refer to sexual attraction to men and to women, respectively. These terms avoid ahistorical identity labels and implying binary gender attractions. However, these terms are unfamiliar to most people, awkward, and unnecessarily technical. The combined term androgynephilia to refer to attraction to men and women is even more awkward and esoteric. For simplicity and clarity, I use “samesex” and “different-sex” to refer to sex of partners. I will use these terms or note attraction to both males to females to indicate particular sexual attractions.
Generally, I avoid using the term homosexual to refer to same-sex phenomena or to people. The “homosexual” is a socially constructed sexual type of person. “Homosexual” is also not an objective term. From its beginning, the term “homosexual” has been associated with social stigma, mental illness, disease, and immorality. Although the terms gay and lesbian carry some social stigma, they are more clearly self-identities and not imposed labels or former clinical disorders. I use the terms gay men and lesbian women to refer to modern sexual identities and the combined term homosexual/gay/lesbian when referring to the historical construction of this sexual kind of person. Heterosexual, as a normative social role and identity, is not stigmatized. In general, I only use the term “heterosexual” when referring to a modern identity. People in the distant past did not have heterosexual identities. Other terms are defned as they arise in the text. Whole chapters are devoted to mating pair-bonds, devoted friendships, and sexual attraction, so these terms will be addressed later.
Some readers may wonder about my own personal biases and to what extent I am objective. That is a fair concern. I can say truthfully that I have been as objective as I can be. I also acknowledge consciously narrowing the scope of this book to a manageable level and that means making editorial decisions to cover some material and not others. The critical reader can decide if I have left too much out or too much in. Like everyone, I have a particular perspective and biases. Taking a perspective is necessary for storytelling. My aim is to tell an engaging and persuasive story that illustrates the facts as I see them. Some readers may wonder how my personal background has infuenced this story. I am a white gay man who spent his childhood in a small, rural, ethnically homogenous Kansas town at a time when being gay was not something people ever said out loud. Everybody worked hard. My father was a laborer, and my mother was a housewife. I am the oldest of their four children. We were lower, middle class at best. We never went hungry, but I do not know how my parents managed to raise a family of six with one small income. My parents were fundamentalist Christians who distrusted education because it led to questioning their authority and questioning God. We attended church at least twice a week. I read constantly as a child because reading was fun and an escape. I am
an overeducated, non-traditional academic. My undergraduate degree is in Art History, and my doctorate is in Clinical Psychology. I am an educator, researcher, scholar, health care policy leader, social activist, and husband. I still read voraciously. I love to cook, visit with friends, and travel outside of the United States, where I can experience different languages, cultures, foods, and wine. Readers can decide for themselves whether any of these infuences matter to this story.
Map of the Terrain
Now that I have outlined the main themes of this book and set some boundaries, we can look at what lies ahead. In Chapter Two, “Love, Sex, Marriage, and Family”, I explore the evolution of human mating pair-bonds and the role of different-sex sexual attraction and romantic love in establishing and maintaining these relationships. Most people readily acknowledge malefemale sexual attraction, romantic love, and marriage, as well as their relationship to reproduction, even if they know nothing about evolution. These associations are generally not disputed, making it a good place to begin. Different-sex mating pair-bonds are an ancient sexual strategy employed by our earliest human ancestors because this approach led to their reproductive success. For parents, staying together to raise their large brained, slow-to-develop, social children became the key to their children’s survival and to out-reproducing other hominin groups. Thus, long-term differentsex mating pair-bonds are adaptive traits. It is unlikely that occasional sex and pleasure were enough to keep ancient couples together. Romantic love was the likely key to long-term bonding. Later, social conventions around coupling and marriage further promoted and maintained mating pair-bonds. This chapter concludes with the claim that a consequence of different-sex mating pair-bonds as an adaptation is that many men and women yearn to fall in love with another person and establish a family, whether children are desired or not. The modern obsession with romantic love is a byproduct of human mating pair-bonds as an adaptation.
Among our early ancestors, male competition for a mate led to the formation of male social hierarchies, male alliances, and, in part, sex segregation. As tasks became specialized and gendered, social life became more complex and further sex-segregated. After childhood, early humans lived and interacted mainly with same-sex members of the community. In Chapter Three, “Friends with Benefts”, I explore the evolution of same-sex alliances and friendships and their functions within early human cultures. Friendships take many forms. I focus on passionate, intimate, long-term, devoted male friendships, rather than alliances or brief coalitions that are more transactional. Devoted male friendships are also qualitatively different than alliances. Within male social communities, devoted male friendships likely functioned to facilitate navigation of the social environment, defend against threat,
increase social status, and acquire resources for survival. Thus, devoted male friendships may have been directly selected as an adaptation. For men, acquiring status, protection, and resources increased the likelihood of obtaining a quality mate, thereby indirectly benefting reproductive success. Emotional bonding through love and sexual affection likely held together devoted friendships, much like mating pair-bonds. We fnd numerous examples of devoted male friendships among contemporary hunter-gatherer societies in the form of blood brotherhoods and mentoring. A consequence of devoted male friendships as an adaptation is that men should desire to have close, intimate male friends. Although direct evidence is sparse, early human females would have faced similar challenges in navigating a largely female social environment. For women, forming devoted friendships to share workload, gather food, care for children, and defend against hostile women and men in the community would have provided many advantages as well.
In Chapter Four, “Life Partners”, I trace the history of devoted male friendships, and a few female friendships, up to the Christianization of the late Roman Empire. One of the earliest examples of written literature is a story about devoted male friends. In the ancient poem Gilgamesh, the Sumerian king and his sworn brother Enkidu bond and have several epic adventures together. After Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh struggles with fnding meaning in his life. Other famous male friends are described in this chapter, including David and Jonathan among the early Israelites and mythic heroes Achilles and Patroclus from The Iliad. The poet Sappho provides the earliest evidence of devoted female friendships in the ancient world. With the Christianization of the Roman Empire, same-sex friendships and marriage changed dramatically and began to take shapes that are more familiar to people today. By the late Roman Empire, radical Christian zealots and Christian emperors began criminalizing and demonizing men who submitted to anal sex, eventually condemning anyone who engaged in same-sex sexual acts. Christian leaders introduced into Western culture a general attitude that condemned sexual pleasure as sinful and blamed male-male sexuality and idolatry for natural disasters, famine, plague, barbarian invasions, and the fall of society. Early Christians viewed devoted male friendships as pagan. The relatively recent disappearance of devoted male friendships in China and Japan can be traced to the domineering, judgmental infuence of Western culture as Western contact increased in these countries. The long history of devoted male friendships and probable female friendships provides strong evidence that most men, and likely most women, have the capacity for attraction to males and females and will express such affections when the culture supports it.
By the late nineteenth century, Western culture had invented two mutually exclusive sexual kinds of people: the “heterosexual” and the “homosexual/ gay/lesbian”. The invention of exclusive sexual kinds of people was a dramatic break with the history of bisexuality that pervaded previous cultures.
In Chapter Five, “Labeling Love and People”, I examine the social construction of the heterosexual and the homosexual/gay/lesbian and how humans have come to experience themselves in these terms. Contemporary sexual science research data also appear to conclusively demonstrate that most people describe themselves as exclusively heterosexual while a small proportion identify as gay or lesbian. However, sexuality research also demonstrates that women are surprisingly fexible in their sexual arousal pattern and not exclusive—despite what they self-report. Similar research shows that men are more fuid in their arousal pattern than they report and contrary to what researchers conclude. New analyses of previously published data actually show that bisexual men experience a continuum of arousal to males and females. How do we reconcile current research data with the long history of concurrent different-sex mating pair-bonds and devoted male friendships? An alternative interpretation of current sex research views scientists and study participants as embedded within culture. By taking a broad historical and cultural perspective, researchers can see how cultures have infuenced how humans experience their lives and their sexual attractions. By recognizing how social discourse and culture have constructed social reality, scientists can better understand how people experience their erotic and sexual lives. I call for a shift in research away from identifying individual differences to a focus on the function of sexual attractions. Small differences between groups of heterosexuals and groups of gay men and lesbian women tell us little that is substantial. Worse, this approach reinforces the idea that differences between these artifcially constructed groups are important. Cross-cultural research that explores the function of sexual attraction in mating and friendship has the potential to tell us much more about the rich role of sexual attraction and sexuality. The interdisciplinary evolutionary model of mating and friendship presented here is an example of that functional approach. This interdisciplinary approach is broader, richer, and more parsimonious than evolutionary theories focused on mating alone.
Acknowledgments
Writing this book has been an intense and stimulating experience. I have learned much along the way that has reinforced my ideas and challenged what I thought I knew. I hope that readers fnd this book as interesting and enjoyable to read as it was for me to write. I am also very grateful to many people for supporting me in this effort. I appreciate the patient assistance that I received from Routledge in readying this manuscript for publication. While working on this book, I have had numerous conversations with people that have generated ideas or identifed problems that I needed to address in this manuscript. In particular, I am grateful to Frank Muscarella for reading and commenting on early rough drafts of chapters and appreciate him overlooking the numerous errors and incomplete thoughts in those drafts.
His comments were insightful and extremely helpful as I put words to the ideas in my head. I have a big thank you for my work colleagues who covered for me on many occasions when I took days off to write. Finally, I am grateful to my husband, Matthew Horsfeld, for forgiving my long periods of inattention over two years while I worked on this project every weekend, many evenings, and holidays. I could not have completed this book without everyone’s support.
References
Beer, B. (2001). Anthropology of friendship. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences (pp. 5805–5808). Kidlington, England: Pergamon.
Blackwood, E. (1999). Tombois in West Sumatra: Constructing masculinity and erotic desire. In E. Blackwood & S. E. Wieringa (Eds.), Female desires: Same-sex relations and transgender practices across cultures (pp. 181–205). New York: Columbia University Press.
Bourque, A. (2017). Technology profts and pivots in the $300 billion wedding space. HuffPost. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/technology-proft-and-piv_b_7 193112
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating – Revised and expanded. New York: Basic Books.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017a). Marriage and divorce. National Center for Health Statistics. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-divorce. htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017b). Transgender persons. https:// www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/transgender.htm
Darwin, C. (1859/1958). On the origin of species by means of natural selection New York: New American Library.
Darwin, C. (1871/1981). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Eurostat. (2019, February 14). Which EU countries have the highest marriage rates? https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/9541683/Marriage+rates +2017
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2019). 2018 hate crime statistics. https://ucr.fbi .gov/hate-crime/2018/resource-pages/hate-crime-summary Freedom for All Americans. (2018). LGBTQ Americans aren’t fully protected from discrimination in 30 states. https://www.freedomforallamericans.org/states/ Geary, D. C. (2010). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gurven, M. (2012). Human survival and life history in evolutionary perspective. In J. C. Mitani, J. Call, P. M. Kappeler, R. A. Palombit & J. B. Silk (Eds.), The evolution of primate societies (pp. 293–314). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Halperin, D. M. (2012). How to be gay. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
Kauth, M. R. (2002). Much ado about homosexuality: Assumptions underlying current research on sexual orientation. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 14(1), 1–22.
Kirkpatrick, R. C. (2000). The evolution of human homosexual behavior. Current Anthropology, 41(3), 385–414.
Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2013). The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science, 341(6145), 526–530.
Marcus, S. (2007). Between women: Friendship, desire, and marriage in Victorian England. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Marlowe, F. W. (2012). The socioecology of human reproduction. In J. C. Mitani, J. Call, P. M. Kappeler, R. A. Palombit & J. B. Silk (Eds.), The evolution of primate societies (pp. 469–486). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, N. F., & Donovan, J. (2009/2013). Blood brotherhood and other rites of male alliance (2nd rev. edn.). Milwaukie, OR: Dissonant Hum.
Muscarella, F. (2006). The evolution of male-male sexual behavior in humans: The alliance theory. In M. R. Kauth (Ed.), Handbook of the evolution of human sexuality (pp. 275–311). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Norton, R. (1997). The myth of the modern homosexual: Queer history and the search for cultural unity. London: Cassell.
People for the American Way Foundation. (2019). Who is weaponizing religious liberty? Retrieved from http://www.pfaw.org/report/who-is-weaponizing-reli gious-liberty/
Prum, R. O. (2017). The evolution of beauty: How Darwin’s forgotten theory of mate choice shapes the animal world—And us. New York: Doubleday.
Robb, G. (2003). Strangers: Homosexual love in the nineteenth century. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2012). The evolutionary origins of friendship. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 153–177.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tiger, L. (1969/1984). Men in groups. New York: Marion Boyers.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2014). Evolving research on the evolution of male androphilia. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 23(3), 137–147.
Vicinus, M. (2004). Intimate friends: Women who loved women, 1778–1928. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Williams, W. L. (1992a). The relationship between male-male friendship and malefemale marriage: American Indian and Asian comparisons. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Research on men and masculinities, vol. 2: Men’s friendships (pp. 186–200). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Love, Sex, Marriage, and Family
Different-Sex Mating Pair-Bonds as an Adaptation
Romantic love permeates contemporary Western cultures. Most of us want to fnd someone to love, fall in love, and be loved passionately in return (Baer, 2017; Goodwin, 1999). People rejoice in fnding their true love and mourn the loss of love. The bliss of falling in love and the pain of losing love are commemorated in thousands of songs and countless poems, numerous novels and plays, and many television dramas and movies. Self-help books on how to fall in love and keep love’s spark alive fll bookstore shelves. When friends get together, almost invariably, the subject turns to who is involved with whom, who is in love, who is struggling to make the relationship work, who is having an affair, and who is thinking about leaving their partner and fnding someone who will treat them better. Humans love the subject of love and its struggles.
Western culture is obsessed with different-sex (male-female) romantic love and loving relationships, but Western culture is not alone. In a wellknown study of love in other cultures, sociologist Susan Sprecher and colleagues (1994) asked adult men and women in Russia, Japan, and the United States if they would marry someone who had all the qualities in a spouse they wanted if they were not in love with that person. Unsurprisingly, a large majority of Russian, Japanese, and American participants said they would only marry for love. A bit surprising, most participants reported they were currently in love, with Japanese men being the lone exception. A study of love among college students in 11 cultures (India, Pakistan, Thailand, United States, England, Japan, Philippines, Mexico, Brazil, Hong Kong, and Australia) found similar results (Levine, Sato, Hashimoto, & Verma, 1995). Across most cultures, students said they were unlikely to marry someone they did not love. Men and women in India and Pakistan were the exception, although not all students in India and Pakistan felt that way. The study authors noted that romantic love in marriage was more valued among individualistic, mostly Western cultures like the United States and England than collective cultures like India and Pakistan. In an enormous study of 10,047 young adult men and women across 37 cultures and 33 countries (six continents and fve islands), participants rated 18 characteristics associated with
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
was het en zóó wit. Als het in den laten middag wat nevelig werd op de heuvelen rondom de stad, en vage sluieren om het paleis waaiden, leek het in zijne weifelende vaagheid als een hemel-visioen in de wolken, waar enkel engelen en materie-looze hemelingen konden wonen. Als ’s avonds de witte en gekleurde electrische lichten waren ontstoken, was het somtijds van beneden niet goed meer te onderscheiden, wat de sterren waren en wat de lichten van het paleis. En de arme, kleine kinderen van misère in de donkere sloppen van de stad, die nooit verder kwamen dan het nauwe, vunzige steegje waar zij in woonden, zagen het paleis hoog boven de daakjes der schamele hut-huisjes, en dachten dat de koningin daar, vér in die glorie, samenwoonde met de engelen, waar ze in hun ellende nog aan geloofden.
Het paleis was gebouwd tegen een wand van witten rotsberg en als achtergrond was de rots nog gaaf behouden, waar grillige struiken en bloemen aan ontsproten en waar fonteintjes zilverhelder water uit wegklaterden in marmeren bassins. Het witste en edelste marmer uit alle deelen van de wereld was voor den [110]bouw bijeengebracht, en, uit de verte van de donkerder stad gezien, leek het wel van heel fijn porselein blanc de Chine, of van lelie-lichte sneeuw, of wel ijl als blinkend wolken-wit, waar maanlicht achter glanst. Wèl was het een waardig paleis om een heilige vorstin te omgeven, die de essence in zich omdroeg van de witte water-lelie en het gouden licht van de zon.
Paulus staarde lang in bewondering naar het witte paleis. Dáár woonde dus Leliane, met het lawaaiende leven laág beneden, hoog boven de stad, even hoog als de kuische Cathedraal, in een andere, reiner sfeer dan de gewone menschen, die niet als zij waren heilig. Wat was dat paleis heerlijk blank om haar blanke onschuld
gebouwd! En wat was het hier plechtig stil! Het gedruisch van de stad kwam maar van heel ver, een flauw gerucht, somtijds even opzuchten, waar zij, in hooge stilte, binnen het blanke marmer, in eigen sfeer ongenaakbaar troonde. Hij liet zich door Marcelio vertellen van al de heerlijkheden daar binnen, van de beroemde albasten troonzaal, van de oostersche prachtzalen voor recepties, van al de pracht, die hare koninklijke schoonheid daar omgaf.
Het waren zeker enkel heel nobele en goede menschen, edelen van onbesmetten naam en vorstelijke deugden, die waardig waren, dat blanke paleis te [111]betreden, en tot de heilige tegenwoordigheid van prinses Leliane te worden toegelaten!
En hij vond het al grooter en grooter wonder, een Godsgenade van uiterste goedertierenheid, dat zulk een machtige en lelie-reine prinses ééns had gerust in zijn eenvoudig kamertje in het bosch, en zíj gesteund had op zijn arm, voor wie de edelsten uit het land deemoedig de knie bogen, om als hoogste gunst de toppen harer blanke vingeren te mogen beroeren. Hij voelde zich sterker en geruster, toen hij weer met Marcelio onder de hooge populieren van den Leliën-Boulevard afdaalde naar de stad. Het harde leven en het druk gewoel der menschen daar beneden zouden hem nu niet zoo angstig meer maken, nu hij wist dat hoog daarboven, veilig en onbesmet van alles, de prinses Leliane woonde, in haar witte paleis, waar niets haar rustige kalmte kon verstoren. En vlak bij haar, in dezelfde sfeer van stille waardigheid, wist hij nu wakende de Cathedraal, opgerezen als een mystieke bloem rankend van de aarde naar den Hemel, het heilige huis van God naast de blanke woning van het reinste Zijner kinderen, in wie Zijn schoonheid zich het heerlijkste had geöpenbaard. [112]
[Inhoud]
HOOFDSTUK VIII.
Langzaam daalden zij den Boulevard weer af.
Maar beneden, in een drukke winkelstraat, kwam opeens iets afschuwelijks Paulus’ vredige vreugde over Leliane’s hooge veiligheid verstoren.
Hij liep in druk gesprek met zijn geleider, toen hij plotseling ontzet bleef stilstaan, met angstige oogen.
„Wat is er?” riep Marcelio. „Waar schrik je zoo van?”
„Dáár, dáár,” riep Paulus, en wees ontsteld naar een oude vrouw die voor hem stond, met een mand. Want in de mand lagen, dicht opeengehoopt, bloederig en jammerlijk, de lijkjes van lijsters, die zij te koop ventte, de lijkjes van zijn lieve zang-vriendjes uit het bosch.
Ze waren gruwelijk om aan te zien, met de fijne pootjes ruw saamgebonden, met geloken, blinde oogjes, en de halsjes bebloed. Treurig hingen de doode kopjes uitgestrekt, verstard van pijn.
„Kom,” zeide Marcelio, een beetje ruw. „Je moet niet zoo week zijn, kereltje. Dat zijn doode lijsters, anders niets. Ga nu door … De menschen kijken …”
Werkelijk stonden een paar voorbijgangers stil. Een loopjongen riep wat, spottend.
Paulus zag harde, roode gezichten. Daar wás het weer ineens terug, het angstige, vijandige, van gisteren avond.
„Je moet je nu maar goed houden,” zeide Marcelio. „We zijn hier in de Wild-straat, en hier wonen veel poeliers. Nu asjeblieft niet wéék zijn … doorloopen hoor … geen gekheid …”
En Paulus liep door. Maar tóch zag hij het, en hij beet zich op de lippen om niet uit te barsten in snikken en wild wraakgeroep.
Want daar lagen ze—uitgestald als het goud, en de diamanten, en de kanten weefsels—de slappe, bleeke lijkjes van zijn lievelingen, vinkjes, bij lange rissen aan touw gebonden, lijsters, snippen, patrijzen, vermoord bij honderden, in wreede, laffe slachting. Overal lag bloed in gore, sombere vlekken, zooals het eerste bloed dat hij gezien had op de doode witte ree, bij Leliane.
En dit alles als heel gewoon. Alsof er niets gebeurd was, en dit zoo hoorde. De menschen op straat keken er niet naar. Het was voor hen als al die dingen, die achter winkelramen te koop lagen. Zij zagen niet den jammer in al die blinde oogjes, de pijn in dat [114]uitgestrekte van hals en pooten, het teêre en lieve in die zachte, bebloede keeltjes, dié ééns vroolijk hadden gezongen zoo mooi lied.
En het was „week” had Marcelio gezegd, om dit droef te vinden.
Maar o! als die menschen dàt doen konden, als die menschen, die daar om hem heen liepen met strakke, onverschillige gezichten, dit zonder mededoogen konden aanzien, dan konden zij ook ál het teedere en lieve vermoorden, dat in hem zelf was.
En opeens, met een fellen steek in hem door, de gedachte:
„Maar God, die aller schepselen Vader is, maar God, zonder Wiens wil geen muschje sterft? Gedoogt Hij dit?…”
En vlak naast hem zag hij opeens het lijk van een zachte, lichtbruine ree, ruw opgehangen aan de achterpooten, het fijne, vertrouwelijke kopje klagelijk hangend naar beneden, de bleeke tong ver uitgerekt, waar bloed langs drupte. Op straat lag een kleine, ronde plas van dat afgedroppelde bloed. En het was hem, of hij nog pijn zag in de groote, angstig gebroken oogen.
Hij kón het niet langer uithouden, en bleef even ontzet staan, de oogen vol tranen.
„Arme lieveling,” zeide hij, en streelde medelijdend met zijn hand de zachte, verstijfde haren, en kuste den dooden bloederigen kop. [115]
Maar Marcelio greep hem stijf bij de hand, en trok hem met zich mede.
„Ben je nu gek?” zeide hij. „Wat moeten de menschen denken? Kom, ga nu mee.…”
En hij ging mede, gewillig, liep hard door, met groote stappen, om niet langer dat verschrikkelijke te zien van al zijn lieve, zachtaardige vriendjes uit het bosch, die daar jammerlijk waren uitgestald als koopwaar, lafhartig vermoord, als bloederige lijkjes, door niemand betreurd.…
Toen, in een breede, rijke straat, nam Marcelio hem opeens mede in een groot, aanzienlijk huis.
Door een glazen deur, met prachtige figuren, in zachte kleuren geschilderd, kwamen zij in een roode zaal van weelde. Het zachte tapijt, waar de voeten onhoorbaar in wegdonsden, was donker-rood, en langs de groote ruiten hingen donker-roode gordijnen. Het plafond was van dezelfde kleur, met gouden arabesken, en goud
praalde ook op de donker-gemarmerde pilaren. Hel-wit plekten de lakens van gedekte tafeltjes, waar kristal en zilver op blonk.
Een voornaam heer in ’t zwart, met glanzend wit overhemd, kwam op hun af, buigend, onderdanig, en noodigde hen vriendelijk uit, te gaan zitten. Zoo hartelijk als een vriend, die een ander iets goeds wil aandoen, dacht Paulus. En toch was er iets [116]vreemds bij, iets kouds, dat hij niet kon thuis brengen.
„Dit is nu een restaurant,” zeide Marcelio, „en een goed ook. Zelfs als je bang bent om vleesch te eten, zoo als jij, is er hier nog heel wat lekkers te krijgen. En om je pleizier te doen zullen we nu eens als echte vegetariërs het menu opmaken.”
Er kwam nu weer een andere deftige heer aan, wien Marcelio opgaf, wat hij hebben wilde, en die toen weer eerbiedig boog, en heenging, om alles te halen.
Paulus verwonderde zich een beetje, en vond het zoo vreemd, dat de eene mensch maar commandeerde, en er dan anderen klaarstonden om voor hem te zorgen. Maar hij durfde nog niet dadelijk alles te vragen, bang dat het weer „week” zou worden gevonden.
Er zaten nog méér menschen aan zulke mooie tafeltjes, als waar hij nu aan zat. En telkens kwamen van die zwart gerokte heeren hen bedienen, eerbiedig en voorkomend. Wat vreemd, dat er zoo waren, die maar behoefden te gaan zitten, om van de anderen alles te krijgen!
Marcelio zag zijne verwondering, en lachte.
„Dat zijn nu kellners,” zeide hij, „die luitjes in die mooie rokken. Kijk ze maar eens goed aan, het zijn hier goede typen.… de
voorkomendheid zelve, als je gewoon bent ze een goede fooi te geven.…”
Nú herinnerde Paulus zich iets. O ja … kellners [117]en restaurants … in die en die boeken er immers van gelezen.…
Maar toch bleef het begrip nog vaag, nu hij er zoo ineens in de werkelijkheid voor stond.
Hij vond het erg voornaam, zoo’n zaal. Al dat rood en dat goud. En dat alleen om even te eten! Deden de menschen dat altijd in zoo’n praal?
De gerechten werden nu voor hem aangedragen, plechtig, met groote zorg, of het heilige dingen waren.
Hoe gracieus bood zoo’n kellner-heer een schotel aan, bijna of hij het zelf een groot pleizier vond, hun zoo iets te mogen geven!
En hoe geurig waren al die spijzen, hoe prachtig opgedischt, met groen en bloemen! Hij durfde er bijna niet van te nemen, bang om de mooie harmonie van den schotel te bederven.
„Neem maar gerust!” zeide Marcelio bemoedigend. „Er is niets van vleesch of wild bij, hoor!”
Paulus had honger, en liet zich alles goed smaken, de fijne eierschotels, de crême-zachte asperges, de malsche salade. Zóó heerlijk had hij nog nooit gegeten. En met blijdschap zag hij aan het dessert de sappige, lekkere vruchten komen, perziken, en peren, en druiven.
Hij liet zich ook door Marcelio een zoeten wijn inschenken. Enkel van druiven, werd hem gezegd, dat kon toch heusch geen kwaad. En hij
genoot van [118]den streelenden, vleienden smaak van de goudgele Haut-Sauternes op zijn tong, dronk nog eens en nog eens.
Zijn angst van zooeven dreef er onmerkbaar door weg, en een lichte, ongekende vreugde voelde hij er van in hem opstijgen. Een gevoel van voldaanheid, van zacht bien-être, kwam over hem heen.
Deze mooie, kleurenrijke zaal, die witte, heldere tafeltjes met bloemen en kristal, die vroolijk pratende menschen om hem heen, die wèlbekende, heerlijke vruchten met den ouden, vertrouwden geur, het was toch wèl aangenaam zoo te eten, en dan die lichte vreugde in je hoofd te voelen … Het was misschien niet zoo verschrikkelijk in de stad …
Maar toch was hij een beetje moe. Hij zou nu eigenlijk wel wat willen liggen, heel rustig en niet praten. En hij zeide het ook maar aan Marcelio, dat hij nu wel weer wat naar huis wilde.
Marcelio riep den kellner en vroeg om de rekening, die op een lang blad glanzend papier werd gebracht. Paulus zag, hoe hij groote geldstukken uit zijn portemonnaie nam. De kellner bedankte, en boog weer diep. Een andere kellner bracht hun hoeden en jassen, en geleidde hen naar de deur, die hij buigend opende.
Marcelio riep een koetsier, die met een leeg open rijtuig voorbijging, en hen naar de Koninginnestraat reed. [119]
Weer dacht Paulus even, hoe vreemd het was dat alles dadelijk voor Marcelio klaarstond, die maar had te commandeeren, om door andere menschen bediend te worden, die alles voor hem deden. Maar daar zou hij later liever eens over vragen.
Toen hij weer op zijn kamer was voelde hij pas hoe moê hij was van al dat nieuwe, in de drukte van de stad. En Marcelio begreep dat
ook.
„Je blijft nu maar wat kalm hier op een canapé liggen,” zeide hij. „Als je je verveelt, in deze kast zijn boeken hoor, en je neemt er maar uit, wat je áánstaat. Ik ga weer uit, ook nog naar ’t paleis even. Om zes uur kom ik je weer halen en zal ik je nog meer van Leliënstad laten zien. Nu eerst maar eens wat goed uitrusten.”
En Paulus was weer alleen.
Zijn hoofd duizelde nog wat. Het gedruisch van de stad en het ratelen van de wagens dreunde nog vaag om zijn ooren. Hier in de stilte van de kamer was het nóg niet weg. Hij leunde met het hoofd op het kussen van de canapé en hield de handen tegen zijn ooren, om niet meer te hooren dat suizende leven.
Toen sliep hij in, en alles zonk weg in rustige stilte.…
Toen hij wakker werd, was het bijna vijf uur. Hij voelde zich weer geheel frisch, toen hij zich flink gewasschen had, en schoon linnen had aangedaan. Nog een heel uur, dan zou Marcelio pas komen. Als hij zoolang eens wat ging lezen? [120]
Kijk, daar stonden juist zijn lievelingsverzen op de eerste plank van de boekenkast: Wederich, Gedichten. Hoe dikwijls had hij ze in het Bosch niet gelezen, op zijn lievelingsplekje bij de witte waterlelies!
Hij kende ze al zoolang, maar nooit had hij ze zoo innig gevoeld als nu, nu hij het groote stadsleven had gezien. Want zij vertelden van Wederich’s eenzaam leven te midden van die honderdduizenden, die hem vreemd waren, van zijn trotsche, bittere armoede in de weelde-stad, waarin hij zich toch rijker voelde dan allen door de groote, mooie liefde, die bloeide in zijn hart, en die hij met zich meedroeg als een heiligen, kostbaren schat, dien niemand zien
mocht. Het waren verzen van stille gepeinzen in afgelegen parken, van vroom doorgeleden uren onder Liefste’s venster, van trotsche verachting voor ’s werelds roem en faam, van sober, arm, onbekend leven nú, in de heerlijke zekerheid van ééns onsterfelijk te zijn.
Hij had ze altijd prachtig gevonden van trots en grooten eenvoud, maar nu hij zelf de donkere drommen van koude menschen om zich gezien had, besefte hij pas, wat Wederich bedoeld had met het stille ronddragen van zijn kostbaren ziele-schat te midden der duistere duizenden.
O! Dat die groote dichter leefde in diezelfde stad waarin hij nu ook woonde, dat hij misschien kans had, hem ééns te zien, van aangezicht tot aangezicht, wat was dat opeens een heerlijk denkbeeld voor hem! [121]Hij zou hem natuurlijk van-zelf herkennen, zonder dat iémand het hem zeide. Dadelijk zou hij het zien, aan zijn donkere Christus-oogen, aan zijn hoog, bleek voorhoofd, verheerlijkt door zooveel heilige gedachten!
En als hij hem ééns kennen mocht, dan zou hij hem geven het liefste, dat in zijn ziel was, en hem vertellen van het bosch, en de vogels, en de bloemen, en van de rustige schoonheid van de witte water-lelies, en van de rustige schoonheid van Leliane.…
Marcelio’s binnenkomen schrikte hem wakker uit zijn gepeins over den geliefden dichter.
Hij was in het paleis geweest, bij de prinses, die genadiglijk naar Paulus gevraagd had. En hij moest Paulus vertellen, hoe zij er had uitgezien, en hoe het toch wel was in haar koninklijke vertrekken, en ieder woord, dat zij gezegd had.
„Maar nu neem ik je weer mee uit,” zeide Marcelio. „De eerste dagen zal ik je zoo’n beetje den weg wijzen, en dán moet je zelf maar je
heil zoeken. Je zult het leven hier gauw genoeg kennen. Dat wént wel. Dan begrijp je niet, hoe je ooit buiten Leliënstad hebt kunnen leven.”
En weêr gingen zij de drukke Koninginnestraat door, waar de lantarens al werden ontstoken, en de weelderige winkels al schitterden van licht. Rijtuigen ratelden, omnibussen rolden voorbij, en angstig klonk het getoet van automobielen. Op de trottoirs schuifelden honderden menschen, zenuwachtig-bewegelijk, roezemoezend. [122]Jongens met couranten schreeuwden nieuws uit, doordringend, hoog van toon, als kreten van angst. En een oogenblik beving het Paulus weer met schrik, en voelde hij lust om terug te gaan naar zijn kamer, om stil in Wederich’s verzen te lezen.
„Het is of al die menschen bang voor iets zijn, of heel gejaagd naar iets vreeselijks moeten,” zeide hij tegen zijn geleider. „Ik zie nog altijd zoo iets angstigs in een straat. Net of er iets ergs moet gebeuren.”
Marcelio lachte even.
„Maar dat is juist het mooie van Leliënstad, mijn beste kerel! Dat nerveuze, dat heerlijk gejaagde! Nu komt de avond, weet je, en den nacht. Dan beginnen de echte lui hier pas te leven, en worden de zenuwen pas geprikkeld. Overdag is het hier je ware nog niet, dat is eigenlijk maar zoo’n soort voorspel, maar ’s nachts is het leven hier op zijn hevigst. Je moet eerst nog een beetje wennen. Dan zal ik je later eens het groote nachtleven laten zien. En de Leliënstadsche vrouwen vooral, de mooiste, de elegantste, de geestigste van de wereld.…”
Paulus begreep nog niet, wat Marcelio hier eigenlijk mede bedoelde. Door zijn eenzaam leven in het bosch, en door zijn lezen van verzen en romans, buiten het realiteits-leven om, had hij van vrouwen nog
het vage, romantische idee, dat zij iets veel beters waren dan mannen, iets bijna heiligs, zooals bijvoorbeeld engelen of feeën. [123]
Hij zag heel goed de vrouwen, die hem voorbijgingen op de straat, en hij zag haar zooals hij altijd bloemen had gezien, met blijdschap over haar mooie kleuren en lijnen. Er liepen rijk-gekleede vrouwen in de Koninginnestraat, die gracieus den rok ophielden voor het stof van ’t trottoir, en wiegend gingen, alsof een zachte muziek binnen in haar ziel haar begeleidde. Bewonderend keek Paulus ze aan. Somtijds lachte een vrouw hem lief toe, en dat vond hij dan erg vriendelijk.—Hij zag ook, hoe andere heeren die mooie vrouwen nakeken, bewonderend. Zonder erg zeide hij het aan zijn leidsman, hoe mooi hij een vrouw vond, die voorbijging, en dan lachte Marcelio schalks geheimzinnig.
Na wat rond-geflaneer, met nu en dan wat kijken voor mooie winkels, nam Marcelio hem mede naar een Boulevard, waar veel restaurants en café’s waren. En nu gebeurde weer hetzelfde als dien middag. Een groote zaal, nú lichtgroen, met veel goud en marmer, en de witgedekte tafeltjes, en de kellners in rok en witte das. Alleen at Marcelio nu vleesch, groote, roode stukken, die hij fijn sneed, met een scherp mes. Paulus vond dat het wee en akelig rook, en het idee dat het stukjes lijk waren van een koe vond hij verschrikkelijk. Hij had moeite, zelf zijn eigen vegetarische spijzen op te eten, met dat vleesch van een vermoord dier onder zijn oogen. Maar hij hield zich goed, om toch vooral niet week te [124]schijnen. En alle andere menschen in het volle restaurant deden als Marcelio, en aten vleesch van doode runderen, en schapen, en vogels. Het scheen iets heel natuurlijks te zijn hier in de stad, dat nu eenmaal zoo hoorde, en zonder de verschrikking was, die hij er in vond.
Na het diner, dat bijna een uur duurde, kwam de koffie, fijne Moccaessence, in heel kleine kopjes, geserveerd in broos servies, op
zilveren schaal, met groote zorg, of het heilige dingen betrof. En Paulus verwonderde zich weer over het gewicht, dat hier in de stad aan het eten werd gehecht, en aan die plechtigheid er bij, of het een godsdienstige ceremonie gold. Het scheen heel natuurlijk te zijn, dat al die mooi gekleede heeren en dames daar in die weelde-zaal kwamen zitten, en dat dan vanzelf al die heerlijke gerechten voor hen klaar stonden, en met praal voor hen werden opgediend. Maar het was hem toch niet recht duidelijk, hoe het allemaal precies in elkaar zat, en waarom de een bediend moest worden en de ander hem bedienen moest. Het was toch wel erg gemakkelijk, vond hij, dat leven van Marcelio.
Na het diner liepen zij weer over groote Boulevards, waar hij nog nooit geweest was, en waar het zoo vol was, dat zij maar langzaam voort konden gaan. In het midden de rij-weg met lange files rijtuigen achter elkaar, aan weerszijden de trottoirs met wandelaars, die langs hel verlichte winkels liepen. [125]Veel van die winkels waren café’s, waar menschen aan tafeltjes zaten te drinken. Hij begon nu langzamerhand te gewennen aan het lawaai en de herrie, maar toch bleef hij alles heel vreemd vinden. Waarom waren al die duizenden saamgehokt in die groote stad, tusschen die hooge, steenen huizen, die toch doode dingen waren? Buiten was het toch veel mooier, met de boomen, en de luchten, en de horizonnen …
Somtijds kwam hem een meisje voorbij die bloemen te koop had. Verlepte, half-doode viooltjes, ruw in een mand gepakt. En het deed hem pijn, als de arme vogelen-lijkjes, die hij ’s middags gezien had, die teere, lieve bloempjes van buiten, hier rondgedragen in de benauwing, waar ze in moesten sterven. Zag dan niemand hoe wreed dit was?
Zóó liep hij met Marcelio rond, die hem de groote Boulevards wilde toonen, met het avond-leven, dat lawaaiend op en neer ging, en die
nu en dan even in een groote café met hem ging zitten, om hem te gewennen aan de drukte.
Tegen tien uur ging hij een groot gebouw met hem binnen, waar in helle, roode gas-letters vlammend het opschrift: „Théâtre des Variétés” boven de deur prijkte.
„Nu moet ik je toch eens even een groot Café-Chantant laten zien,” zeide Marcelio. „Het ballet van Rosita zal nu wel zoowat beginnen.” [126]
En het was als een apothéoze voor zijn jonge, onervaren oogen.
Eerst een groote Hall, in moorschen stijl, schitterend van goud en zilver, en arabesken, en mozaiek. Zijne voeten gingen zachter dan in gras, op donzig, oostersch tapijt, en zijne oogen pinkten heftig voor het helle verblindende licht overal, eer zij er aan wenden. Deftige heeren liepen er heen en weer, en dames in prachtige, rijkruischende robes van zijde en kant, met lange slepen, statig glijdend achter haar aan. Haar blanke borsten en armen deden hem aan als dingen van mooi, die hem verrukten. Haar oogen glinsterden als sterren, en zij lachten lief in het rond. Dat waren erg mooie, lieve vrouwen, vond Paulus. De menschen waren toch niet zoo leelijk als hij gevreesd had. Zij deden lief en vriendelijk tegen elkaar.
Een vage geur van bloemen droomde nu en dan langs hem heen, waar eene vrouw voorbijging.
Marcelio lachte somtijds tegen een mooi gekleede vrouw, die hij scheen te kennen. Zeker eene goede vriendin, dacht Paulus.
Door een zwaar fluweelen gordijn kwamen zij nu in de groote theaterzaal van het Variété.—De eerste indruk was teêr licht-groen en goud. Goud van zware lichtkronen en ornamenten, licht-groen
van boiserieën en lambrizeering. Ook het zachte tapijt op den grond was licht-groen.
Het plafond, hoog boven hem, leek wel een teer-groene [127]Hemel met vreemde sterren. Honderden lichtjes van allerlei kleuren, blauwe, roode, paarsche, gele, schenen in zachte bloem-kelken, die uit dien lichten hemel neerbloeiden.
Hier en daar, achter in de zaal, waren kleine grotten met palmen, en met murmelende water-fonteintjes, en groene priëeltjes van latwerk en klimop, waar heeren en dames vriendelijk lachend met elkaar zaten te praten en te drinken.
Marcelio leidde Paulus mede naar voren, waar de menschen in breede rijen groen-met-gouden fauteuils aandachtig zaten te kijken naar wat heel vooraan zou gebeuren, waar een zwaar, breed groenfluweelen gordijn nog dicht hing.
Het orchest begon juist een langzame, slepende wals, en een vreemde siddering ging er van door Paulus’ ziel.
Zwijgend van aandoening ging hij naast Marcelio in een fauteuil zitten. Hij keek rechts en links, een beetje bang voor al die menschen.—Aan beide zijden zag hij nu groene loges, intiem als kamertjes, met deuren. Daar zaten rijk gekleede menschen in, vrouwen met roze-en-blanke bloemengezichten, met fijn, glanzend haar, waar diamanten in schitterden, als zon-befonkelde dauwdroppelen. Het zachte blank van haar halzen en armen was inniger dan van witte lelies, en haar oogen glansden licht als sterren. Zij lachten hartelijk en lief, en hij voelde een ongekende [128]vreugde, dat al die menschen zoo blij waren en zoo vriendelijk. Neen, zij waren toch zoo leelijk en zoo slecht niet, als hij wel gevreesd had. Alles om hem heen was welwillend en meende het goed.
En dan die vreemde, slapende wals-muziek, die zijn ziel deed beven! Zij was om zacht van te huilen, en toch heel gelukkig om te zijn. Het was hem of er iets in hem ging bewegen wat altijd roerloos was geweest, en nu ineens zacht, zacht te wiegen begon.
Daar ging ineens de zware draperie geruischloos uit elkaar, door onzichtbare handen bewogen, en hij zag een wonderen bloementuin op het tooneel, een feeërie, alsof hij opeens een nieuwe, nooit gevonden plek had ontdekt in het Bosch.
Langzaam begon nu de muziek een vreemden, betooverenden dans, en het was of die tokkelende tonen geheime sferen opentikten in zijn ziel, waar zalige ontroeringen aanbewogen.
Toen … waren het bloemen?… waren het blank-en-roze vlinders?… zweefden, in wolkjes van witte tulle en gaas, zachtekens broze, feeachtige wezentjes door den tuin. Hun lichte, slanke lijven wiegelden en balanceerden als roze lelies in lichte winden, en zonder zwaarte droomden zij langzaam, op vage rythmen vooruit, éven maar den grond beroerend, met de punten der spitse voeten.
Als bovenaardsche wezens, uit manestralen en lichte veder-wolkjes geboren, zag Paulus ze naderen, materieloos, [129]zooals de elfen en feeën moesten zijn. Een huivering van eerbied ging door zijn ziel, als toen hij voor het eerst Leliane had gezien, slapende in de zilveren mane-stralen. Er was iets van Leliane zelve in die wondere, lichte wezens van gratie en droom.
Ademloos, zooals hij wel eens stil naar vreemde vogels en onbekende vlinders had gezien, bang ze te verschrikken, zag hij de luchte feeën in hun wuivende wolkjes van tulle heen-en-weder zweven, nu hier en dan daar tusschen de bloemen, hun vlugge voeten maar even rakend den grond, als zouden zij straks ópvliegen, verdwijnend in ijle sferen.
Totdat zij opeens stil bleven staan, de handen gracieus wenkend naar boven uitgestrekt, wachtend op iets heerlijks, iets goddelijks, dat komen ging.
En als een roze vogel, zacht-neerstrijkend tusschen niets dan witte, zweefde opeens Rosita aan, neêrdalend uit de lucht, op groote, trillende vleugels van transparant gaas.
Dit moest een engel zijn, dacht Paulus.
Want, luchtig wiegend in de lucht, zonder steun, niet rakend den grond, door eigen fijne ijlheid gedragen, danste zij op vage rythmen langzaam door het ledig, als een roze droom-verschijning boven de witte feeën, die de armen biddend naar haar hielden uitgestrekt. Zij scheen een ziel, zwevend in reine sferen van aether, broos als de roze wolkjes van het [130]eerste morgenrood, op eigen glans van schoonheid gedragen, boven de werkelijkheid van materie, dra vervagend in het niet …
Totdat zij genadiglijk nederdaalde op de aarde, maar enkel haar met de punten der voeten éven vluchtig bezwevend, en, altijd zacht doorwiegelend, de roze rozen plukte uit den tuin.
Luchtigjes voortgestuwd op rythmen van de heel zachte muziek, droomde zij heen en weder, ijl als een roze zeepbel op vage trillingen van lucht.
Toen voelde Paulus eene wondere ontroering opwellen in zijn borst, en het was hem, of iets van het schoone van Leliane weer voor zijne oogen was verschenen, goddelijk en genadig. De tranen schitterden in zijn oogen. O! Hier was het dan terug, zijn liefste ziele-mooi, dat niet had durven opbloeien in de benauwing van de stad. Want dit was van het mooi der blanke-en-roze vlinders, der teeder-kleurige bloemen, der zacht-veerige vogels, dit was transparant als vage
nevelen boven het water, en broos als de witte wolkjes in de lucht, dit was in de sfeer van droom, waar enkel ijle ziele-dingen kunnen wonen.…
Hij was de zaal en al de menschen om hem heen vergeten, en het weten van de werkelijkheid was in hem weg.
Onschuldig en argeloos, zooals een kind naar mooie kleuren ziet, en strekt de armpjes verlangend uit, zoo staarde Paulus in verrukking naar die broze [131]verschijning van vrouw, die maar áldoor zachtkens voortwiegelde door de rozen, en dán weer ópzweefde in de lucht, zonder zwaarte, in edele golvingen en soepele lijnen, als een engel, spelemeiend van louter zaligheid, die haar eigen liefelijkheid luchtig uitdanst op lichte cadanzen.…
De vlinderachtige feeën trachtten het hemelsche wezen te naderen, en wilden haar liefkoozend omvatten, maar telkens ontglipte zij haar, met bevallige zwenking, en het was als een charmant gespeel van witte kapellen, waartusschen een ijle, roze libel wijkend zweefde, en in luchtigste luchtheid hooger ópdroomde, in sferen, waartoe zij niet konden rijzen.
Totdat eindelijk het roze lucht-wezen met wijd-gespreide vleugels in rechte rijzing omhoog wiekte, en de witte feeën droef-ontmoedigd bleven staan, de blanke armen verlangend uitgestrekt naar die hooger sferen, waarin de hemelsche verschijning als een liefelijk wonder van glans en droom was verdwenen.…
Toen viel het zware gordijn voor het kleurige visioen, en ’t stormachtig handgeklap van het publiek riep Paulus tot de werkelijkheid terug.
„Nu?” hoorde hij Marcelio zeggen.
„Is Rosita een elf?.… een fee?.…” vroeg Paulus, verrukt. „Ze is een hemelsch wezen!”
„Vin-je!.… Zou je haar wel eens willen kennen?” antwoordde Marcelio, met een fijn lachje. „Ze is een [132]vriendinnetje van mij. Ik zal je eens aan haar voorstellen bij gelegenheid.”
„Ja! breng mij bij haar!.…” riep Paulus. „Ze is zoo mooi, zoo mooi als een lichte engel.…”
En zijn argelooze ziel wilde met een heel kuisch en rein verlangen naar dit mooi van vrouw, zonder vreeze, zooals een wit vlindertje, dat een groot licht gezien heeft, en trillende van zaligheid de vleugels spreidt om naar dat verre schoon te wiegelen, dat het zoo wonder ontroerde.
Moe van al de emoties kwam hij ’s nachts thuis. Marcelio ging dadelijk weer uit, toen hij hem op zijn kamer had gebracht.
Vóór Paulus naar bed ging schoof hij nog even een gordijn open, en keek naar buiten.
De straat was nu ineens heel anders dan overdag. De groote winkelpaleizen waren nu allen donker, lichte-loos, met hun blinkende spiegelruiten blind, door ijzeren luiken er voor. Ook de ramen boven, in de hooge verdiepingen, waren dicht. Zwijgend, koud en donker stonden nu de groote huizen-gevaarten, met al hun schitterende weelde geniepig verstopt achter het zwarte, geslotene.
Alleen de straatlantarens brandden wat licht, telkens één uitgedoofd na één die vlamde. Dat gaf wel wat licht op straat en beneden aan de huizen, maar boven waren het duistere dingen, die met een
