Alan W.Watts [1915-73] is generally acknowledged as a leader in bringing Zen Buddhist teachings to America. He was connected with the
Beat movement in the late Fifties and was considered a mentor to the hippie movement of the Sixties. He lectured and wrote poetry & articles, and one major method of his influence was radio broadcasts from San Francisco that were widely syndicated; many of his published books are transcripts of those radio programs.
Playboy Magazine’s December 1965 issue included a short article by Watts entitled “The Circle of Sex”, which stuck with me all these years; I located a copy and re-read it as background for this essay. Watts gives credit in the article to Gavin Arthur [1901-72] for the original ideas, which are also dependent on prior thinkers. Arthur was a classic eccentric of San Francisco: astrologer, gay activist, and mentor to major Beat figures, such as Cassady &
Ginsberg & Snyder (Ginsberg wrote a well-known poem about him); one internet reference says that Watts was his son-in-law. (There is a rare book published in 1966 with the title “The Circle of Sex” and naming the author as Gavin Arthur.)
* * * * * * * *
This essay has two parts: a re-telling of the principles of the
Circle of Sexuality, and then a description of the evolutionary basis for homosexuality. The two ideas are correlates. [There is nothing in the following discussion that need be withheld from any age group, though ‘parental guidance may be advised’. Anyone easily offended probably already is.]
The central premise, and magazine illustration, is modelled on a clock face, with twelve positions. The topic requires being clear about the difference between sex and gender. Herein ‘sex’ means biology, as having either XX or XY chromosomes; sexuality has to do with physical actions. The term ‘gender’ has to do with sexual expression, which is somewhat malleable.
The descriptions below are suggestive, rather than definitive – using the information found here as labels or precise types, to pigeon-hole oneself or another, defeats the purpose.
The base axis is 12 o’clock versus 6 o’clock.
Watts names these positions Darby and Joan. For the 12 o’clock position I prefer John: the basic male of Western civilization, happily married & monogomous, with full-time career employment, wife and kids. The suburban wage-earner, the urban blue-collar worker, the independent farmer or trucker.
The 6 o’clock position is John’s mate, Wilma: the basic female of Western civilization, also happily married & monogomous, whether homemaker or wage-earner, with husband and kids. The suburbanite, the urban mother-figure, the engine of many small towns.
Their diametric opposites are the 9-3 positions; Watts calls these Sappho and Dorian. I’ll call the 3 o’clock position Bruce: he looks and acts masculine, but his sexual desire is focused on males – basic unembarrased homosexual. I’ll call the 9 o’clock position Ellen: looking and appearing feminine, but with lesbian sexual desires. These are the gay-lesbian individuals who know who they are and have nothing to prove; if they are in any way neurotic or unhappy, it is because they have the same internal problems as John and Wilma – dealing with life at any position on the Circle takes work, and the Culture-Structure is designed to prevent success.
Movement on the Circle is generally clockwise; the 9-3 axis rotates to the 10-4 positions. Individuals here often suffer societal rejection, and thus often do not accept themselves as they are. Watts names the 10 o’clock position the Dyke – the very masculine female – but I like Gertrude (after Gertrude Stein, a pioneer in Self-hood). Watts names the 4 o’clock position the Quean – note the spelling: Webster’s defines this word as ‘base or slutty woman’, which may have evolved into the derogatory term ‘queen’. Let’s instead call this type Oscar (after Mr. Wilde) – the feminine male.
The line between the sexes is between the 10-11 and 4-5 breaks.
Watts describes the 11 o’clock position as a lesbian in a female body (the reverse of the masculine-female Gertrude) and calls him Don Juan – the foppish but secure seducer of women, with no intention of middle-class monogomy. The name Hugh comes to mind, after Mr Hefner, of course.
Watts names the 5 o’clock position Lady C., after a combination of Lady Chatterly and Catherine the Great. I like the name Kate, which has an air of Ms. Hepburn (regardless of her life’s details) – this gender-clock position is the tomboy and-or nymphomaniac. This is the gay male in the female body.
In both types, the individual is most comfortable with the opposite sex, for either friendship or sex.
The 1-7 axis is less sexual than the ones above; the common thread is strong devotion to some vocation outside family, individuals who live for the joy of work. Watts calls the 1 o’clock position Pioneer, the male who is never home, perhaps spending time out of doors or watching sports with buddies, or running an organization or business. I’ll call this guy Bud (Bubba invokes too much cultural bias). Watts calls the 7 o’clock position the Clubwoman, and refines that by invoking Jacqueline Kennedy – the woman who is never home, perhaps out shopping or running an organization or business. Jackie works for position 7.
Watts describes a second ‘watershed’, one between masculine and feminine (gender) as occurring at the 7-8 and 1-2 breaks. Watts also makes the point that each individual may waver among a few nearby gender-clock positions over the years, either in practice or merely in attitude or social behavior.
He names the 8 o’clock position Career Girl, defined as sexually ambiguous or bi-sexual; the male 2 o’clock position is Caesar, the insecure tough guy. For both of these positions, sexuality is merely a tool in one’s arsenal, used for manipulation of others, secondary to ambition. Soap opera people, the ball-breaker and the knee-breaker; let’s call them Stacy and Gino.
* * * * * * * *
The 1965 article further expands on the principles by stating that the Circle itself is really a sphere, with the twelve types along the equator, the hot ‘sexual latitude of love’. Lots of points on the spherical surface to move among and between over a lifetime, as one navigates from society to culture to peer-group.
The twelve described gender-types – John, Bud, Gino; Bruce, Oscar, Kate; Wilma, Jackie, Stacy; Ellen, Gertrude, Hugh – may or may not fit who you believe yourself to be. You are infinitely more complex than that.
What the concept of the twelve types provides, however, is an understanding that nobody else quite fits a specific gender-clock position either.
So why is so much effort expended in force-fitting everyone into the John-Wilma model?
The force-fit itself is unnatural, otherwise, no force would be required. If one or several gender-types seem somewhat parallel to your internal experience, then give yourself permission to
*BE* that gender-type. Nature is there, why mess with it?
Much simpler, though, is to work at being your Self – let your Working Mind guide your behavior, and look not to the anti-Self propoganda of the Culture-Structure for guidance. Nor to the twelve positions on the
Circle of Sexuality.
Be your Self; the rest will work out just fine.
* * * * * * * *
One of the central arguments by the troglodytes that try to ‘prove’ that homosexuality cannot be ‘natural’ is that no progeny result, and thus no evolutionary benefit can exist. Now re-think that in light of the
Circle of Sexuality above.
First, if the 12 gender-clock positions describe reality; that is, if you know people in each gender-type, there must be some benefit, otherwise that reality would not be in place. Suffice it to say that the multiplicity of positions on the gender-clock produces a rich variety to choose from, for oneself and for selecting one’s partner. (Or partners: triads & menages make for a too-complcated array of options for this essay.)
If one chooses and commits to the John-Wilma career-track, or the mommy-track, then have at it. Be monogomous, drive a Toyota to work, attend P.T.A. meetings, spend the holidays with the multi-generational clan.
But if such is not your ideal, even for this stage in life, then no outside person has the power or the right to force any Working Mind into conforming to their ideal. The planet has too many bodies anyway, sucking up too much oxygen and spewing noxious gases, so tell them to back off.
The Right To Choose covers more than what is on the tube or on the shelves at
Wal-Mart.
* * * * * * * *
When I worked in security, one of the radio shows that I listened to on weekend patrol was often Dr. Dean Edell’s health show. One short news item that he read also stayed with me, as it clearly explained the existence of homosexuality, which remains a topic of ‘controversy’ even after the strides made by the women’s rights movement and by the gay liberation movement.
The gist of that radio paragraph is that one of the evolutionary changes in homo sapiens is the development of the milder male and the more-macho female. The evolutionary benefit is producing the male who spends more time at home and-or the female who can take care of herself, which works well in a civilized – i.e. modern, Western – culture that no longer requires the
John Wayne macho male or the subservient Stepford Wife. The milder male is a better parent, and the strong female needs less supervision.
Where evolution kicks in is with the operation of Mendelian genetic inheritence. Though unproven, the passing down in the DNA of a milder male trait or a stronger female trait is conceivable and possibly quite beneficial.
What is often overlooked is the machinery of genetic inheritence, which repeatedly includes random results. Certain such genetic results are called ‘sports’, wherein either long suppressed traits – body hair, eye color, forehead ridge – reappear after seeming to be lost for generations or when new combinations just happen. Thus people with six fingers or albinism or eyes of two different colors.
What Dr. Dean’s reportage points to is that a certain amount of milder male or stronger female will be handed down by
both parents, and the result may be people located on the left and right side of the
Circle of Sexuality, the 9-3 axis.
Two doses of such a gene would produce an extra amount of something. This could indeed explain the butch lesbian (two doses of stronger female?) and the gay male (two doses of milder male?). Add in multiple gene-strands, and the twelve positions on the gender-clock are explained.
The point here is not to prove this evolutionary process, but to open the concept to examination. The non-straight male or female may not be directly beneficial for the species, BUT the concept certainly matches the processes of Mendelian genetics, wherein the true benefit is the milder [civilized] male and the stronger [liberated] female – each of whom is better suited for life in urbanized, industrialized, technocentric 21st Century life.
The albino or the six-fingered individual is rare enough to lack formation of a rights movement, but the 15 percent or so of the population who might define themselves as other than John and Wilma or Hugh and Kate or Bud and Jackie have (a) a right to exist because they exist (pure Ayn Rand Objectivism), and (b) have a right to be left alone (per the U.S. Constitution) – at the very least.
Repositioning others from one gender-clock position to the artificial John-Wilma ideal is absurd.
The U.S. taliban should just shut up and get to work on really important matters that affect us all, such as the U.S. National Debt, treason in high places, pollution in our physical world, economic slavery and over-population.
No one is going to save you from the imminent extinction of Mankind – the predictable result of rampant ignorance, superstition, greed and cultural irresponsibility.
You and many others must join the fight for Mankind, or Mankind is extinct.
Alan W. Watts Pages at Maison d'Être Philosophy Bookstore
[copyright 2005 by Gary Edward Nordell, all rights reserved]
For the full contents of this issue of the free 'WMail' ezine, click here.
