Wallace On Sexuality And Lesbians

CNAES

You need 3 min read

·

Post on Nov 29, 2024

33 visitor like this post

Share

Wallace on Sexuality and Lesbians: A Deep Dive

So, you wanna know what Alfred Kinsey's nemesis, Alfred C. Wallace, had to say about lesbians, huh? It's a bit of a wild ride, let me tell you. This isn't exactly a topic plastered all over his most famous works, but by digging deep, we can piece together a picture—a rather complex and, frankly, sometimes frustrating one.

The Missing Pieces: Wallace's Silence on Lesbian Sexuality

Let's get one thing straight: Wallace didn't write extensive treatises on lesbian sexuality. Unlike some other topics, his views aren't laid out in neat, easily digestible paragraphs. We're doing some detective work here. This makes things a bit tricky, but also, kinda exciting, right?

Why the silence? That's the million-dollar question. Victorian era, folks. Let's just say open discussion of female sexuality was...not exactly encouraged. It's likely societal norms and the prevalent Victorian prudishness played a huge role. Adding to the mystery, much of Wallace's personal correspondence remains unstudied. We're working with what's available, and honestly, it's a bit like piecing together a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.

Inferring Wallace's Views: A Bit of a Guessing Game

To understand Wallace's potential stance, we need to look at his broader views on sexuality and evolution. He believed strongly in natural selection, of course. But how did that play out in his thinking about sexual behaviors that fell outside the "norm"?

He was pretty conservative, let's be honest. He viewed sexual behavior primarily through the lens of procreation—a very Victorian viewpoint. Anything deviating from that purpose might have been considered… suboptimal, to put it mildly. This perspective likely colored his view of homosexuality in general, including lesbian relationships.

Natural Selection and the "Problem" of Lesbianism

Imagine, for a minute, how a staunch believer in natural selection might view a sexual orientation that doesn't directly lead to procreation. It's a tough one, isn't it? It's reasonable to speculate that Wallace might have viewed lesbian relationships as somehow counter to the natural order—a deviation from what he saw as the primary purpose of sex.

Remember, this is all speculation, based on his broader beliefs. We're not saying he outright condemned it, but his silence and his general conservatism suggest he wasn't exactly embracing it either. It's frustrating, but this is the puzzle we're left to solve.

The Larger Context: Victorian Morality and Scientific Thought

To really understand Wallace's (likely) lack of commentary, we need to consider the Victorian era. Homosexuality, lesbian or otherwise, was heavily stigmatized. Openly discussing it in scientific circles was practically unthinkable. The very idea might have been considered scandalous.

And here's where things get really interesting: the tension between Victorian morality and emerging scientific thought. Wallace himself walked a tightrope between these two worlds. He was a brilliant scientist, yet he also held views rooted in Victorian sensibilities. This internal conflict makes interpreting his silence on lesbian sexuality all the more difficult.

Conclusion: More Questions Than Answers

So, where does that leave us? Frustrated, perhaps, but with a deeper appreciation for the complexities of historical interpretation. Wallace's views on lesbian sexuality remain largely unspoken, hidden within the silences of the Victorian era. We can infer some possibilities, based on his broader perspectives, but definitive statements are impossible. The mystery lingers—a testament to the limitations of historical evidence and the enduring power of societal norms. More research is desperately needed!