Why Are So Many Animals Homosexual?
nautil.us
nautil.us
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/09/sex-depravity-p...
[2] http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141117-why-seals-have-sex-w...
"The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Aves: Anatidae)"
http://www.hetnatuurhistorisch.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/docu...
or more popular:
Kees Moeliker: How a dead duck changed my life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUQLN4o63SY
or
"Kangaroo shown 'grieving' was actually trying to mate with dying female: experts"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-14/grieving-kangaroo-actu...
Even cannibalism of the partner's body during or after sex can be supported with "nature":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_cannibalism
Evolution produces everything we can imagine, and more.
"Traumatic insemination, also known as hypodermic insemination, is the mating practice in some species of invertebrates in which the male pierces the female's abdomen with his penis and injects his sperm through the wound into her abdominal cavity (hemocoel)." "The process is detrimental to the female's health. It creates an open wound which impairs the female until it heals, and is susceptible to infection."
Nature is absolutely fascinating (and makes me happy I'm a human).
Truth to be told, being human in the case of being female human but born on the wrong place, under wrong religion probably wouldn't make you happy:
Typologies of FGM
Hundreds of millions affected.
Your points about the hardships of being human depending on birth circumstance are important, and deserve attention in general, but I don't think they're really constructive to the discussion at hand, or at least this little branch of it.
My comment here involves destroyed genitals of humans by humans, certainly not a reason to be a happy human if you are among the affected, and it's hundreds of millions of them.
And it is in the branch of discussion of animals destroying their genitals as the necessary condition for reproduction. Consider that the partial destruction of genitals is also effectively necessary condition for reproduction if you are unlucky enough to be born there and female.
What I thought made it non-relevant is that FGM is cultural, not genetic or a species wide aspect of our psychology (regardless of whether it affects millions). Additionally,I don't think you made a good case as to why being born as a species that has to contend with bad conditions (but I don't believe worse than the alternative) isn't preferable to being born a species that has to contend with death at every attempted mating.
In short, it felt a bit like you used FGM for impact due to it's status in our culture, not for it's relevance to the discussion at hand. It's possible I'm not seeing a connection you thought was implied there though, so feel free to expand if you feel like it.
On that level it's not different from any kind of contraception, also widely done in humanity, so not really insightful there. It's interesting to me only because it's a religious "trick," a way to do something what is formally not forbidden. Like
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/once-u...
"Once Upon A Time, The Catholic Church Decided That Beavers Were Fish"
...in order to eat their meat at the times of fasting. The rest of the article has more examples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
"Roughly 60% of all bonobo sexual activity occurs between two or more females."
It seems that there are 2 nearly opposite evolutionary drives one is that long term bonding increase the likelihood of offspring survivability and the other that promiscuous mating increases the overall group genetic diversity.
Some bird species that also present same sex bonding will have single sex bonds nesting and having another female lay eggs in their nest, other species that operate under more communal care for their offspring show behavior akin to what we would call adoption.
Most species have sex extremely conservatively, and very few are capable of the frequency and duration of sex that humans engage in.
But why can we observe same-sex pair bonding and sexual contact so frequently, even in species that don't seem particularly sexually obsessed?
That's what my ex-girlfriend claimed, because she never actually observed animals behaving, "the animals are so peaceful." Then as she was in the park, she was witness of, named with the human-related names, a violent prolonged gang-rape of one female duck by the group of male ducks.
The female duck was wounded, repeatedly and observably. My girlfriend was deeply shocked.
By the way, a male duck has a 20-cm corkscrew-shaped penis and he can pull it out in a third of a second:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwjEeI2SmiU
And penises of cats are barbed, evolved and now necessary to make pain to females:
How much in percents is that "plenty"?
It's easy to toss qualifications, it's much harder to reasonably quantify what we research. I don't agree it's "plenty of species" (Edit: of course, in a sense that it's useful for a discussion argument, as in "majority", certainly not in a sense "an example can't be found" of course it can).
Anderson, D. J. and P. T. Boag. 2006. No extra-pair fertilization observed in Nazca Booby (Sula granti) broods. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118:244-247.
Moreno, J., L. Boto, J. A. Fargallo, A. de Leon, and J. Potti. 2000. Absence of extra-pair fertilisations in the Chinstrap Penguin Pygoscelis antarctica. Journal of Avian Biology 31:580-583.
Lifjeld, J. T., A. M. A. Harding, F. Mehlum, and T. Oigarden. 2005. No evidence of extra-pair paternity in the Little Auk Alle alle. Journal of Avian Biology 36:484-487.
Nazca Booby, Chinstrap Penguin, Little auk.
[1]Lack, D. 1968. Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds. Methuen and Company, London.
[2]Griffith, S. C. , I. P F. Owens , and K. A. Thuman . 2002. Extra-pair paternity in birds: A review of interspecific variation and adaptive function. Molecular Ecology 11:2195–2212.
Sufficient if we just consider birds, of course. But what do we discuss here? It started with the
"There are plenty of species which are well documented to have monogamous relationships"
claim and all I see is birds and birds.
Edit: thanks for finally answering below my question "how much in percents is that "plenty of species"?" Your answer is "90% of birds." The rest of discussion would have been unnecessary, especially quoting some three specific birds as the answer. I also agree with yours "the average sexual behaviors across all species doesn't give you much insight."
Remember this is not a popularity contest and there are a lot of species out there. Why does behavior X happen is not asking what happens the other 99.99% of the time.
Why? What is being proved, unless we talk about majority? So we are able to find some animals that are monogamous and not violent? What then?
Like in the article, tossing "plenty" and "many" actually doesn't help for anything more than creating illusion that the behavior we like is somehow "supported" by nature.
It's not problem analyzing some behavior, the problem is unsupported "plenty" and "many."
That said, this whole thread is nothing but people trying to anthropomorphize nature, so that they can pretend it's more cuddly than it actually is. There is no chemical for morality secreted by all species. There is no evolution for empathy. These are things humans create through their own intelligence, and no amount of anthropomorophized behavior will make that not the case.
And then we come to our nearest relatives (bonobos, chimps) being both promiscuous and ready to jump on the same sex and to use that behavior as a bonding ritual.
> people trying to anthropomorphize nature, so that they can pretend it's more cuddly than it actually is
Exactly, Disney would certainly not approve Fark squirrel:
They also commit cannibalism, rape, murder, bullying. You can't get any morality or moral arguments out of nature.
Specifically, you can't use pure existence of some acts in the nature as an excuse or confirmation for validity of any human acts.
Still studying the nature and the dynamics of living beings can actually help us humans more understanding our own actions, it gives us a good context as we're also animals, even if that thought isn't pleasing to everybody.
You’re presupposing a specific morality, and then rejecting other forms of morality on that basis. Alternatives are going to by definition be different. So, you need another way to judge them.
Think of it in these terms, if one species of poisonous animal is brightly colored that says little. If several are brightly colored that's more significant.
Edit: In math you only need one counter example to disprove a theory. In science a few is generally enough.
There's this historic recontexualizing of animals as being "just like us." I think that's just wrong and it leads to bad outcomes. Its only recently that we've been able to acknowledge the intelligence of octopus or crows because we were so focused on animals 'like us' which were primarily mammals. Ten years ago it would have been unthinkable to say an octopus is smarter than a dog in polite company. You would have sounded like a crazy person.
I suspect these views aren't academic but actually political. The "animals are just like us" seems to be 60's counterculture vegitariansism and the "animals fuck all the time and are gay" seems to stem from the gay rights movement to validate their position as "natural," whatever that means. In fact, I read a book about this in the 90s and the thesis was just that. It was a fairly popular book.
Your penis design doesn't really help your argument. A hard to remove penis means a higher chance of pregnancy. Humans don't have this probably because we have sex so often, but for animals with a short heat period its very important to fertilize those eggs on the first try. Also, animals are not as lingual or culturally complex like humans so the barb is how the male controls the female. In human society we do this too via cultural baggage, male domination, marriage norms, dating norms, one-sided social pressure, and sometimes the outright threat of violence or rape. So the idea that penis barbs are these awful things is questionable compared to the alternatives.
Lastly, one of the big issues with repairing the damage of human encroachment into wildlife areas is that we can't just get animal populations back up easily. They're not used to smaller mating populations, less territory, less younger and more viable mates, etc and their sexual habits reflect that. Pandas are an extreme example, but this issue happens with most animals. They can't just magically become as promiscuous as humans. It would be nice if they could, but its just not in the cards and that's going to lead to issues like extinction down the line for many of today's endangered species and already has happened for so many more.
I don't know. In my opinion, is not that "they are like us" but that "we are one of them". We are animals. In this context, to pretend to separate animal behavior from human behavior is what is "just wrong and leads to bad outcomes".
The singular behaviors of humans are not more singular that other animals. Why to focus in "being horny all the time" and not in eating the mate after copulation?. This is a political decision too, a kind of human chauvinism.
Just to be clear, I don't say that there is nothing special about humans, but we have to see in the context of what we are, another animal that have evolved in a curious way. In my opinion, this category separation is the wrong way to think about the subject.
Please name percentage that supports your "typically" claim. It depends what you want to count.
If we count our closest relatives, they are bonobos and chimps.
Bonobos:
http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/bonobos-have-sex-...
"Bonobos Have Lots of Sex, Are Awesome, May Hold Key to Our Past"
Chimps:
http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/entry/chimpanzee/beha...
"The majority of chimpanzee reproductive behavior is promiscuous, with females mating with multiple males opportunistically during estrus, though the majority of copulation occurs during the 10-day period of maximal tumescence (Goodall 1986)."
The observations of Goodall were disputed by some stupid male "scientist" who claimed that she "projects her values to chimpanzees." But she observed the behavior in the nature, documented it and published. He was the one who "projected."
100% of our closest relatives are provably promiscuous.
And some of them do copulate with the same sex too.
Also, having lots of sex in a 10 day period is impressive, but humans don't have a 10 day heat period. They're in heat all the time. Its not really comparable.
I think we can split hairs all day, but I don't think its controversial to say that animal mating and human mating evolved in very different ways. Obviously our closest relatives in the animal kingdom will be most like us, but even they have heat periods.
The whole point here is that sex != reproduction. IE social sex constructs, homosexuality, conflict resolution through sex, and just recreation via sex.
> Also, having lots of sex in a 10 day period is impressive, but humans don't have a 10 day heat period. They're in heat all the time. Its not really comparable.
It's true that humans are available for sex all the time - a claim no other mammal can make as I understand it - but chimps and bonobos are also available for sex far more often than they are in a viable reproductive state.
Sexual swelling in bonobos, for example, is almost consistent throughout the cycle.
No:
> I don't consider 'sexually greeting' each other by grabbing assess to be on the same page as sex.
They actually do greetings by involving their reproduction organs.
"Genito-genital rubbing of bonobo females"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdeAJUxJ7gg
> but humans don't have a 10 day heat period. They're in heat all the time.
Bonobos and chimps don't have too. They do make sex all the time. Google "concealed ovulation." That's the evolved mechanism where female never signals when it actually ovulates. And it's present by bonobos.
Actually "many" animals aren't choosy, having no problem jumping on the same sex or even corpses or non-living objects, and don't make long-term unbreakable bonds. There are enough links here in responses.
Honestly, have you never had a male dog trying to copulate with your leg?
Having trained my four dogs I do not have this issue. I believe they are not copulating but, trying to establish dominance. I'm not sure that particular behavior is proof that they will hump anything. My friend had a female poodle who used to hump furry toys and she wasn't rubbing her parts on it. I think she was small and felt like a boss in doing it.
What happens when they aren't trained against? How far would they go? I claim the untreated and unneutered males would actually ejaculate.
Do people in these situations let dogs do this as long the dogs would prefer is the real question.
Note that you just discarded a honest sex act of a dog as just "rubbing genitals"? So when is a sex act sex act and when it's "just rubbing"? Is licking genitals, what dogs do, a sexual act? Was Clinton actually right, what he had with Monica was not even sexual?
sigh..
That isn't what the post says. The post says, literally:
[Why Are So Many Animals Homosexual?] "Because some animals fuck anything that moves and doesn't".
Meaning homosexuality is a symptom, consequence or by-product of "fucking anything".
As to what you said:
> you can find any imaginable sexual behavior in the animal kingdom, and even what you would never imagine, don't project to animals human constructs.
If we can find any imaginable sexual behaviour (for example, homosexuality) in the animal kingdom, how is any imaginable sexual behaviour (for example, homosexuality) a "human construct"?
No, literally, you've cherry picked the part, the post is much more nuanced:
"Because some animals fuck anything that moves and doesn't, including dead animals[1] and other species[2]. Not sure if applying human categories such as "homosexual" to non-human animals is helpful, though."
> If we can find any imaginable sexual behaviour (for example, homosexuality) in the animal kingdom, how is any imaginable sexual behaviour (for example, homosexuality) a "human construct"?
The behavior is of course not a human construct. Using animal behavior to prove any human practice is, because any practice can be supported that way. Just like the post you didn't quote fully also tries to suggest and exactly what I attempted to summarize, even if it can be better worded, for what I'm ready to apologize.
That being said, Hans Hermann von Katte and Friedrich the 2nd were lovers.
When people describe homosexuality as unnatural, I don't believe they are claiming homosexuality is not found in nature. I believe they mean that the homosexual sex act is not how our sexual organs are supposed to work biologically.
And that's provably wrong, as we have enough examples in nature of "sexual equipment" working on whatever.
PS Don't even get me started about saddlebacking 'virgins'.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Saddlebacking
The religions often depend on sacrifices.
We have also evolved, so our organs also evolved to do what they do. Just like dog's organs evolved to even copulate with your leg.
The nature is not "exclusive" the way human religions are.
There is more logic than "you put the penis in the vagina" that implies that the two are designed for procreation. All you seem to have here is that animals touch eachother's genitals sometimes. Not sure how that has any evolutionary implications. Even less sure that there is more than some reactionary evidence to show otherwise as well.
Dogs regularly lick genitals of other dogs. Do you really think they didn't evolve to do exactly that, that it's "unnatural"?
Edit: Licking genitals as behavior is actually something that provably evolved, not less than anything else that any animal does. That's how evolution works. jklinger410, I warmly suggest reading some books about evolution.
I do not think that dog's penises evolved so that other's can lick it, no.
How would it? Someone has to reproduce. If you just go "welp, awful crowded in here, guess I'll give up and go gay" then it certainly won't be you, and your go-gay-when-crowded genes die with you.
Continuing to reproduce in an overcrowded situation [eg limited food / shelter] doesn't make sense -- this could serve to help the species.
By whom?
>homosexual sex act
Which specifically?
>wrong gender
According to whom?
I'm all for using science-based observations to promote tolerance but this feels a little forced.
Comparing the 500–1500 number (of presumably well-observed species) with an estimated total number of species is not really a good comparison. Setting aside the accuracy of the estimate of the number of species and how many of those have actually been seen/classified, what fraction of those have been observed well enough to make a reasonable determination of the occurance of homosexual activity? Certainly the fraction of well-characerized species who exhibit homosexual behavior is much higher than the 1-in-1000 rate your numbers imply.
What if individual reproduction is NOT the norm? What if species survival is a combination of reproduction and survival (producing food, defense from predators, etc.). What if only a fraction of a species are required to be "breeders" and the rest perform survival duties? What if the apparent majority of sexual reproduction is only a temporary abberation and now that the species has reached a stepping stone, the "temperature" on sexual reproduction is turning down? Look at bees, for example. Only a minority of them reproduce while the rest perform survival functions.
"From an evolution standpoint, what was the point of having people around who were not inclined to have offspring? There must be some good, and fairly subtle, reason for it.
The only thing he could work out was that it was groups of people--societies--rather than individual creatures, who were now trying to out-reproduce and/or kill each other, and that, in a society, there was plenty of room for someone who didn't have kids as long as he was up to something useful."
It has gotten me to think about this. In general male and females are the same except we have organs that allows reproduction. Essentially that's it. As we passed the 7 billion people mark (let alone 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 billion) do we really feel the need to populate? Sure a lot of us are embedded with sexual desires, but as the population grows sex for recreation takes place over sex for survival.
This bring me to another thought about conservatives. They disagree with sex between the same gender. In a way they have a point. Googling "conservative" grants the following definition -
"holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion."
Back in the day there was much more of a need for sexual reproduction as the human race had been plagued with deaths, diseases, and unfortunately events. There was no need for "nonsense" like having fun. We had to survive! You'd follow an order (be it wealth, race, gender roles) and that's that. As we began to master or land and really create our own destiny having fun (e.g. sex) became something to do for fun. Its a circle...
Idunno, just a thought. Its an interesting topic non-the-less.
Where do you draw the line between friendship and homosexuality in geese?
Is there physical sexual interaction between male/female geese, or are they only labeled homosexual/gay because they choose a same sex partner?
It's not only applicable to humans, by definition. It's applicable to anything that reproduces sexually.
That's what people thought about animal suffering back in the 17th century. Descartes argued that animals didn't have consciousness, even, just base instinct.
Goose pride is where it's at.