Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Jason Coleman's column >>

JASON COLEMAN

Home Page
A structural engineer with a love for tech, politics, science, and culture.
Articles Posted: 8  Links Seeded: 1601
Member Since: 1/2006  Last Seen: 8/04/2011

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

The Gay Animal Kingdom

Seeded on Wed Jun 7, 2006 9:23 AM EDT
Read ArticleArticle Source: seedmagazine.com
science, biology, homosexuality
Seeded by Jason Coleman
Advertise | AdChoices

The effeminate sheep & other problems with Darwinian sexual selection.

Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection—she's no bible-toting creationist—but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can't explain the homosexuality that's been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality.

[H]aving homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia. You name it, there's a vertebrate out there that does it. Nevertheless, most biologists continue to regard homosexuality as a sexual outlier. According to evolutionary theory, being gay is little more than a maladaptive behavior.

Joan Roughgarden, a professor of biology at Stanford University, wants to change that perception. After cataloging the wealth of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom two years ago in her controversial book Evolution's Rainbow—and weathering critiques that, she says, stemmed largely from her being transgendered—Roughgarden has set about replacing Darwinian sexual selection with a new explanation of sex. For too long, she says, biology has neglected evidence that mating isn't only about multiplying. Sometimes, as in the case of all those gay sheep, dolphins and primates, animals have sex just for fun or to cement their social bonds. Homosexuality, Roughgarden says, is an essential part of biology, and can no longer be dismissed. By using the queer to untangle the straight, Roughgarden's theories have the potential to usher in a scientific sexual revolution.

Darwin's theory of sex has been biological dogma ever since he postulated why peacocks flirt. His gendered view of life has become a centerpiece of evolution, one of his great scientific legacies. The culture wars over evolution and common descent notwithstanding, Darwin's theory of sexual selection has been thoroughly assimilated into mass culture. From sitcoms to beer ads, our coital "instincts" are constantly reaffirmed. Females are wary, and males are horny. Sex is this simple. Or is it?

From the pages of this month's Seed Magazine, Jonah Lehrer tells us how over 450 different animal species have been observed displaying homosexual behaviour. Read the whole article here.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

  • Jason Coleman's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (12)
Brad Leclerc

I have a HUGE problem with this article....I don't like apple pie!

Other then that though, great stuff. Very interesting article. :D

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 10:17 AM EDT
Jason Coleman

I enjoyed this article a great deal, even if I think that we're a long way from having a final answer. First, it shows us that homosexuality is far from a human creation or a result of just human psychology. It appears to be something much more natural than most of us ever realize.

Also, it shows us all that scientists are willing to question even the most revered of their disciplines when evidence suggests otherwise, despite so many fundamentalists and creationists who would have us all think science is some sort of anti-God religion.

Lastly, I've been reading more and more about just how complicated evolution can be in terms of entire species over long periods. Studies involving community, altruism, homosexuality, and more are becoming hot topics in biology. No doubt, this isn't anything that new, but I think we're beginning to get a grasp on just how complex our society is, in animal terms.

  • 5 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 10:52 AM EDT
Todd Warfel

One of the fundamental flaws in the research cited here is the claim that these are homosexual acts. The acts of these 450 or so species are not homosexual acts at all. Having studied animal behavior with some of the foremost behaviorists at Cornell's Lab of O and having been privileged enough to look at the behavior research they're doing, it's not homosexuality that dictates these behaviors, but rather social dominance. It's not the same thing in any respect.

These claims that these behaviors are homosexual are entirely false. They're not based on homosexual tendencies or behaviors, but rather on one typically male species showing who the alfa male is.

Joan is simply making a weak attempt to turn this into something it's not.

  • 1 vote
Reply#3 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 2:28 PM EDT
Jason Coleman

Todd, with all due respect to your background, I'm not sure you thoroughly read the articles (sometimes graphic) description of these acts. The article mentions female behaviour a great deal, for one. Also, I think that the behaviour is partially male dominance, but Roughgarden seems to think that many of these acts cannot be explained by that alone.

  • 4 votes
#3.1 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 2:59 PM EDT
praetor605

I do wonder how many of those animals that engage in homosexual are strictly homosexual. I wonder if some of these acts are, as the article says, a social/group device and many of the animals will revert to heterosexual acts to produce offspring. I do not know either way, I would just like to see some actual data.

  • 1 vote
#3.2 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 3:22 PM EDT
Jason Coleman

Of course, this is a pop-sci publication and they tend to be light on the hard data. I would suspect she has further data in her book and she appears to be a prolific author of peer-reviewed journal pieces as well.

    #3.3 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 3:25 PM EDT
    Brad Leclerc

    Definately one where seeing the data would really help either side of the argument.

      #3.4 - Wed Jun 7, 2006 3:40 PM EDT
      Miss Dev

      @Todd - it's difficult to take your opinion as authority when you say "alfa" male - not alpha male (no - it's not purely a grammar gestapo thing - it is a credibility thing).

      Also, while some forms of mounting are just a form of social dominance (such as when dogs mount each other or objects) and not sexual release (both females and males display these behaviors), there are cases where there is actual homosexual conduct. With male animals indicated by penetration (and some oral contact in primates, as they do not rely on taste as identification in the way some other vertebrates do), with females by pleasure release brought on by contact. Homosexuality in animals is definitely easier to delineate between males - as I believe it is with humans, as females are generally more affectionate and the lines between homosexual acts and friendship can be blurred.

      • 6 votes
      #3.5 - Thu Jun 8, 2006 12:36 AM EDT
      mike3k

      I've seen a case of it being used to establish dominance. When I brought home a stray male cat, the first thing he did was attempt to mount my older neutered male cat. He hasn't done it since then, although I had him neutered the next day (which was one of the reasons I took him in, since we have too many strays making kittens).

      • 1 vote
      #3.6 - Thu Jun 8, 2006 10:44 AM EDT
      Jason Coleman

      I think pretty much every pet owner has observed this. However, the behaviour described in this article is clearly something different. This is animals performing an observable pattern of homosexual activities.

      I don't think my dog Harry is homosexual any more than he is into cross-species sex, even though he attempts to hump male humans all the time (and he's been neutered for over nearly five years). However, female bonobos that generation after generation engage in homosexual activities are something else entirely.

      • 2 votes
      #3.7 - Thu Jun 8, 2006 11:00 AM EDT
      Celestina

      In my experience (and I work with pets for a living), dominance activites may appear to be sexual on the surface, but they continue little longer than is necessary for the "submissive" animal to accept or reject the actions of the "dominant" one. I have never seen it end in ejaculation, as is repeatedly referenced in the article. Further, as Miss Dev points out above, penetration is not the aim of the act, whereas in the instances listed in the article, it often is.

      It is tempting to write off animal behaviours which could be interpreted as "homosexual" as mere dominance or deviance, simply because those who would prefer to believe that we are not like other animals do not want to contemplate our sexual activities in the same arena as those "barbaric" animals. But if Ms. Roughgarden is correct, then our own sexual preferences must be evaluated in a new light; not one of "normal" and "deviant", but rather one of a deep rooted need to co-exist with the other animals of our species.

      • 4 votes
      #3.8 - Fri Jun 9, 2006 10:02 PM EDT
      Reply
      MasterNav

      Interesting that her work would come out of a singular experience (the Gay Pride parade) and yet she claims that the evidence is overwhelming. On the other hand there are thousands of species that have little incidence of what has been tagged as "homosexual" behavior.

      The label itself is misleading and assumes that human mores in our particular culture are immediately tranferable and valid in observed behavior in other species. We have not been able to successfully address the complexity of human interaction at any significant level in our own species!

        Reply#4 - Thu Jun 8, 2006 10:03 AM EDT
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        FUN STUFF:
        • Leaderboard |
        • E-Mail Alerts |
        • Top of the Vine |
        • Newsvine Live |
        • Newsvine Archives |
        • The Greenhouse |
        COMPANY STUFF:
        • Code of Honor |
        • Company Info |
        • Contact Us |
        • Jobs |
        • User Agreement |
        • Privacy Policy |
        • About our ads
        LEGAL STUFF:
        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com