Talk:Animal sexual behaviour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Animals
 Animal sexual behaviour is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.
Animals Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Animals To-do:
Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Section on Mating, Subsection of Monogamy

  • Mating systems deal with how animal sexuality is integrated into social organization and facilitates reproduction. Monogamy is a mating system. The article on animal sexuality either needs to have a section on mating systems that includes monogamy along with other mating systems, or readers should be referred to the Wikipedia page on mating systems, where they can find the link to the page on Monogamy.
  • The original section was entitled "Opportunism and Promiscuity". The term "promiscuity" can be used to refer individual behavior or to mating systems. Species with monogamous mating systems can have sexually promiscuous individuals, a fact completely lost in how the section was originally written. Biologists and zoologists have created the terms social monogamy and sexual monogamy to reflect this reality. Many socially monogamous species are sexually non-monogamous. However, animals that form socially monogamous pairs but engage in occasional sexual non-monogamy are not generally considered to have promiscuous mating systems. For examples of promiscuous mating systems see bonobos and chimpanzees.
  • It's important to make the distinction between social monogamy and sexual monogamy. Zoologists and biologists do, including Barash (see page 12 of The Myth of Monogamy), a zoologist given a lot of attention in the original version of the section.
  • I added references to scientific articles that document sexual non-monogamy in socially monogamous species.
  • If the article claims something is documented in The Myth of Monogamy, then the quotes should come from that book and have page number citations.
  • The Myth of Monogamy has a broader agenda than simply documenting sexual non-monogamy in socially monogamous species. It uses the fact that many socially monogamous species are sexual non-monogamous to build a case that lifelong sexual monogamy is not natural in human beings. This agenda should be made explicit when pointing readers to The Myth of Monogamy. Also, it should be pointed out that Barash and Lipton are not arguing that sexual monogamy is somehow impossible or undesirable. They are simply arguing it's unnatural and therefore difficult to achieve. This is an important part of the viewpoint expressed in The Myth of Monogamy.
  • I also added a link to the Evolution of Monogamy article, which contains related material.
  • The section on Psychogenic abortion could be incorporated into a section on polygynous mating systems, since it seems to be a phenomenon commonly associated with polygynous mating systems.
  • I combined all material on cross-species sex into the section on cross-species sex. Having a separate section for possible cross-species sex between humnan and chimpanzee ancestors seems to serve no purpose except to try and draw reader's attention.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc62301 (talk • contribs)

Not bad edits. Some material (cites) taken out, might be worth reinstating if valid. The reason that "chuman" and human genetics were separated was to avoid confusing two issues: animal sexuality (which is fairly non controversial) and human evolution/human-chimp sex (which is a separate topic and could be quite controversial). The main subject is not helped if a chunk of what some would see as extraneous material to make a point, is merged into it. So it was placed in a separate section to make clear it was scientifically relevant, but distinct. Do you feel okay now that's explained, putting the human-related material in a separate section? FT2 (Talk) 22:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That makes sense. Two sections seem okay from that perspective, so feel free to change that back. Also, feel free to reinstate or add back in any cited material I deleted. I expected a back-and-forth process of changes to the edits I made. Also, I hope someone else has time to write a little something up on other types of mating systems in animals. I'm already committed to working on other Wikipedia articles. kc62301 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.133.218.63 (talk • contribs) 04:54, June 12, 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up question: theres a big chunk of human monogamy. That's not really relevant to animal sexuality. Would you be okay with it being moved to an article that covers monogamy in humans? Perhaps with a note to say that discussion of these findings in a human context is at (article link)? FT2 (Talk) 08:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. But with a qualification. If we're not going to discuss human monogamy at all in this article (which is fine), then we should not claim or hint that the rarity of monogamy in animals suggests monogamy is unnatural in humans. If we're going to claim or hint that the rarity of monogamy in animals suggests monogamy is unnatural in humans (which is also fine), then we should fairly portray the context and the limits of that claim. I'm currently revising the article on monogamy. Check out the draft at Monogamy Draft. I have a section (see Value of Monogamy) which mentions the claim that lifelong sexual monogamy is unnatural or unrealistic. Some of the material might be integrated into that section. I have a feeling it won't be long before we have to create a stub/index page that points people to various articles on monogamy: animal monogamy (in this article on animal sexuality), evolution of monogamy, incidence of monogamy, values and views on monogamy, psychology of monogamy, sociology of monogamy, and so forth. Not quite there yet IMHO. kc62301
I dont think this article should be seen as a means to covertly lead into human sexuality. It should look at animal sexuality as the end in itself. best let it be on animal sexuality, with a link of "See Also" to point to related articles ion human sexuality. In that sense I think we agree, it shouldnt claim or hint anything about "animals do X so hjumans do Y". Thats a study for human monogamy, not animal sexuality. FT2 (Talk) 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we agree. I like your style. :-) kc62301
Thanks. :) can you do the move? Since its your material and you know how you feel its hould best be handled? Maybe move it to monogamy or evolution of monogamy, in some section like "Comparisons with animal monogamy" maybe? FT2 (Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. I added headings for polygyny and promiscuity, plus a tiny blurb about promiscuity, just so monogamy wouldn't be the only mating system in that section. Someone might want to reorder the sections based on the fact that polygamous mating systems are more common and therefore deserve priority in discussion. That would be fine with me. I already had a section in my draft revision of the monogamy article about human sexual monogamy being unnatural. It even included a quote from Barash and Lipton. But I replaced that quote with one from their book, the Myth of Monogamy, since they are probably best known for that book. I have no further plans to touch this article for awhile. Nice working with you! kc62301

[edit] Use "Gay" or "Homosexual" with Animals?

Hi, please contribute to this new page. I'd particularly like us to have good documentation from webpages or journal articles, as this is a controvertial subject. Thnx! --zandperl 02:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article used the phrase "gay penguin" at one point. I decided to change it to "homosexual" (while restructuring the sentence), because the word "gay" is loaded (referring, in my understanding, to the idea that one can be homosexual and not unhappy about it). Where "faggot" is pejorative, "gay" is complimentary -- well, it was. "Gay" can be used pejoratively, too, but that's a recent development. Of course, "gay" is a common and acceptable term in reference to a human, so I would have no objection if it were. But I don't think loaded terms really apply to animals so well, because they don't have the social framework we do and we're taking concepts that normally apply to humans and applying them to animals. It's kind of like calling an insect that cannibalizes its children "pro-choice", or referring to an animal that defends its children to the death as "pro-life". See what I mean? I think the only use of "gay penguin" would be if we were to anthropomorphize the penguin, in this specific case, anthropomorphizing it humorously (since there's no other reason to), which I don't really think works in an encyclopedia. Anybody agree or disagree with me here? --Furrykef 19:20, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While agree that it seems ridiculous to discuss non-human animals using many terms which apply to humans, such as rape, I absolutely disagree that you have "homosexual" is not loaded. See User:Hyacinth/Style_guide with a grain of salt for info. Hyacinth 21:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm technically bisexual, myself, just to be clear (and note that neither "heterosexual" nor "bisexual have inherent negative connotations). Sometimes I jokingly describe myself as "gay" just to see if I can ignite any flames, but I'm not, really. I tend to be physically attracted to females, but can be emotionally attracted to either sex equally (which transcends physically attraction in my opinion), so I really can't take the idea of people necessarily fitting neatly into "gay", "straight", or "bi" seriously; it's merely convenience. Getting more on topic, clearly this whole name game is a troublesome issue...however, I do think "homosexual" is preferred in clinical texts, which is the kind of tone we would like to establish here. In my understanding, Wikipedia is reluctant to make judgement calls on volatile issues, rather, it likes to reflect current judgement. Our problem here is that, if I were to accept your argument completely, neither "homosexual" nor "gay" are NPOV. So here we must choose the lesser of two evils...I still suggest that a clinical text would use "homosexual" and it's most appropriate here. "Homosexual" can be a loaded term, for sure, and you're right that few are self-described "homosexuals", but this word has been used numerous times in neutral ways in clinical texts, so...hmm. --Furrykef 13:26, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I decided to go with the solution of "same-sex" in the sentence in question (as you suggest on your page), not only as a compromise but because it reads better, so everybody wins. However, that doesn't handle the rest of the article including its very title. --Furrykef 13:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
To be further clear, I agree that "homosexual" can be loaded but whether it is depends entirely upon context (whether or not the word's origin was loaded). If I point to you and say in a disdainful voice, "You're a homosexual!", it's pejorative, no question. If I point to myself and say "I'm a homosexual," it might be self-deprecating humor (not deprecating because I'm implying I'm gay but the way I'm expressing the thought). If I motion towards a third person and say in a straight (no pun intended) voice to the second, "he's homosexual," it's unclear and judgement as to the connotation would depend on what the second person knows of my character. But if I said the phrase "forming homosexual pairs" (as I did in my revision of the "gay penguin" sentence), and with no sign of negative connotation anywhere else, I'd argue that it's neutral, because the term is used in a matter-of-fact way. Moreover, I think "homosexual" in reference to a couple is a bit different, connotation-wise, from in reference to a person. --Furrykef 13:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Furrykef, as you seem thoughtful, polite, and informed, I invite you to participate in discussions on terminology at: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Identity, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity, and their respective talk pages. Hyacinth 22:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the idea of "gay animals". I have learned that there is no proof that the penguins and swans were actually engaging in sexual activity. I believe they love each other like brothers or very close friends. And gay monkeys, they were in a state of drunkeness. They were drunk, they were horny, they had sex. They didn't know or care what they were having sex with. Thus, there is NO PROOF that there is homosexuality in animals. --Yancyfry jr 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be extremely confused about what the definition of homosexuality is. --mboverload@ 02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And everybody seems to confused by the distinction between "homosexual" and "gay". They are not synonyms. "Gay" is a complex of social roles that is a creation of late-20th-century Euro-American culture, and has dubious meaning in human cultural contexts outside that culture and time, to say nothing of non-human contexts. Whatever arguments may be made about anthropomorphism and selective interpretation of observed behaviour, it is possible for non-human animals to be homosexual; that is, it is possible that they may form sexual pair-bonds with partners of their own sex. It is, however, flatly impossible for them to be gay. --7Kim 10:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Homosexuality is the romantic attraction to those of the same sex. They were attracted when they had no control over themselves. -Yancyfry jr
Attractions are by definition beyond anyone's control. Haiduc 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"Homosexual" is the preferred term in scientific works on the matter. I suggest sticking to that. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donkeys

In Chiplun, Maharashtra, India there are at least 100 donkeys resident there on the streets. By some strange coincidence all donkeys also happen to be male. Residents are witness to actual anal sexual intercourse between two male donkeys many a time. Anyone interested in researching...? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:31, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Which begs the question of why anyone should presume that anal intercourse in and of itself defines a male animal as homosexual, particularly where no females of the species are present. Dare I suggest that this interpretation is guided by the stereotype that butt-sex is the alpha and omega of male homosexuality? --7Kim 10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lions

I have personally observed what appeared to be same-sex sexual behavior between two male lions at the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. Specifically, one lion displayed his penis (bright red, kind of hard to miss) and mounted the other. There was, as I recall, a good deal of roaring involved on the part of the lion on top, though I cannot testify as to whether he was experiencing an orgasm or simply an enjoyable stretch with his partner serving as yoga mat. Moreover, I have no way of knowing whether this is sexual behavior, or perfectly innocent and virginal dominance behavior -- perhaps lions are kinks and can't tell the difference themselves. :) --FOo 00:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Liger fertility

This page states that ligers (a cross between a lion and a tiger) are normally fertile. However, the Liger article states that "Most ligers are sterile; however, a few births have been recorded." Anyone know more about this? If nobody knows, I'll change "normally fertile" to "sometimes fertile."

They are not normally fertile. Nate | Talk Esperanza! 20:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyena

Added mention of Spotted Hyena. Saw reference to sexual relationships on the BBC Living Planet documentary series. Spotted Hyena wiki page also mentions dominance relationships but nothing on sexual play. --MJW 81.154.201.45 12:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dolphin

Another BBC documentary but I missed the first 4 minutes and have no idea what it was called. Probably Wildlife on One. I'm a bit worried about my generalisation on "highly sexual", since it's probably completely meaningless. Can anyone improve or debunk the dolphin thing? --MJW 81.154.201.45 12:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although you can probably find more detailed info by searching the internet, I'll just provide some personal observations. I worked for a short while for the US Navy, and the dolphins that they had were definitely "highly sexual". My guess is that the behavior was sometimes just social, and sometimes related to dominance (but that's just my guess). They also had one male dolphin who would regularly masturbate in the water inlet. BlankVerse ∅ 16:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I have learned, Dolphins are the only animals who enjoy sex. So, if they enjoy it, my guess is they will "do it" more often. --Yancyfry jr 20:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

Maybe we should rename this article to Sexuality in animals or Animal sexuality. Its branching off from the topic of homosexuality with inter-species sex already, and I'm sure more work could be done to branch further. Also, the human homosexuality articles are (if I remember correctly) being renamed along similar lines. -Seth Mahoney 02:48, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --FOo 03:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Animal sexuality would be my preference. -Sean Curtin 23:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
The title Animal sexuality implies that the article is going to deal with heterosexual reproductive sexual behavior too -- which is a vast topic of its own. As it stands, however, the article deals with homosexuality, interspecies sex, parthenogenesis in lizards, the clitoris of the female hyena, and other traits and behaviors that are unexpected or considered unusual.
This article has gone from being about homosexuality in animals to being a highlight film of freaky weird animal sex or something. :) Exactly what title fits that subject, I'm not sure I want to say. Freaky weird animal sex is almost certainly not it. --FOo 03:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Something like Deviant animal sexual behavoir pops into mind, but that's certainly not going to do it. Queer animal sexuality? No. This always gets so tricky! Though... I suppose we could name it Animal sexuality and leave any particularly interesting heterosexualish animal behavior to the articles on the particular animal, since someone looking for heterosexualish animal behavior is likely (maybe?) to want to know about it with respect to a given animal. If there is any generalized heterosexualish behavior that many animals engage in, or something like that, it could be thrown in. Then again, maybe we should keep this article and move all the non-homosexualish stuff to another article (how did it get here anyway?). -Seth Mahoney 04:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Alternative animal sexuality? We mustn't be judgemental, after all ;-) I do totally agree that a rename is in order; this article covers way more than just homosexuality in animals. Just wish I could be more help. TomTheHand 04:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we should ask the animals what they would prefer? -Seth Mahoney 05:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
My guess is they'd consider it to be none of our business! TomTheHand 05:08, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The current title, "Homosexuality in animals", is anthropomorphic, so it is inappropriate as an encyclopedia title. "Animal sexuality" is a highly ambiguous title, so again, it is inappropriate. Something like "Same-sex pairing in animals" (or more specifically "Same-sex pairing in Vertebrates") might be the best title (For example, the articles on the "lesbian" seagulls are usually some like FEMALE-FEMALE PAIRING AND SEX RATIOS IN GULLS: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (PDF). BlankVerse ∅ 16:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we did use pairing, I'd recommend making this article and Animal sexuality redirects to it. -Seth Mahoney 18:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
"Homosexuality in animals" is not anthropomorphic. It means same-sex sexuality. I believe you're drawing a "homo sapiens" connection here when you should be drawing a connection to words such as homogeneous, homophone, or homotype.TomTheHand 00:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Did we ever reach a consensus about this? -Seth Mahoney 22:56, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we did not ;-) TomTheHand 00:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay, here's a statement of intent: I'm going to change the title of the article to Animal sexuality on April 22nd if there aren't any new objections by then. I will also make Homosexuality in animals a redirect to Animal sexuality. If anyone thinks of a better title, we can use that. For the time being, though, Animal sexuality seems our best bet, since the article is no longer about Homosexuality in animals. -Seth Mahoney 04:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good to me personally. It's been kind of a mess coming up with a term, and while Animal sexuality is a little general, if there's a problem in the future we can deal with it then. In the meantime it's definitely an improvement over the current title. TomTheHand 13:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Link in cross species sex

The link for dog and cat is dead, just so you know. Bremen 14:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cross Species

The links (photo) provided in this section are unscholarly/original research at best, and completely fake at worst. The dog and cat one looks like it may have been created in photoshop, and there's no accompanying text. I tried going up to higher level directories, but couldn't get anything. The antelope and zebra one is so out of focus and low resolution that I can't even tell that they're real animals. And that image comes from this website, which is certainly not scholoarly! I'd say both links should be removed. Blackcats 03:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critical Analysis

This could be an interesting subject, but this Wiki entry is full blatant mistakes and misrepresentations and seems to be more politically focussed than discussing actual science.

First, the reference to the Penguin's is absurd. You claim that they have mated for life, yet the reference is only from 2004 ! Are the penguin's dead? In fact, some sites now claim that this behavior was only transient, and has now stopped. So what is the real story!

Second, you should stop quoting any and all references to Kinsey's work as valid and accepted statistics! This work is over 50 years old and is no longer relevant, and has been supplanted by the more modern, extensive 1994 NORC/University of Chicago study! In particular, the popular "one in ten" statistic is completely unreliable and generally now understood to be over-estimated. Please see: [1]

Third, it is unclear what the study on Ram's says, and the statistics you quote seem to be way too high, again. Consider the link [2], which indicates that the real number of gay rams is less that %2

Additionally, the Ram study has many facets which make this study only dubiously related to human sexual preference and behavior--and you should NOT IMPLY otherwise. For example, it has been suggested that the Ramn behavior may be attributed to a single point mutation which gives rise to an overproduction of the enzyme aromatase. Furthermore, this may be a genetic defect resulting result of inbreeding. In any event, this behavior seems to resemble human hermophrodism (which are also known genetic defects) more than "biological homosexuality"

The discussion listed above on the Rams, however, is more informative.

In humans, there is NO EVIDENCE that homosexual behavior has such a direct a genetic component in humans--this is quite easy to verify and the the basic "Twins Studies" on human homosexual males disprove this trivially.

Fourth, the discussion of Bonobos is somewhat misleading and not properly cited. It should be noted that the female clitoris has apparently eveolved specifically to encourage female-female "grinding," and this is quite distinct from all other apes and well as humans. As for the male-male sexual interaction, I would like to see the specific reference, as this is NOT discussed in well know Scientific American article on Bonobos. Please cite this explicitly.

Fifth, it is a gross mischaracterization to imply any sam-sex behavior in animals is somehow "evidence" of human homosexuality beging biological! Please go back to high school and review the Scientific Method ! At best, this observation can only serve as a means to form the hypothesis, and there is absolutely no reproducible and credible evidence that human homosexuality or human sexual preferences are biologically driven. In particular, you compare the Ram study to Simon LeVay's work on studies on the homosexual male brains, and, yet this work has never been reproduced, even after 10 years!. There are tons of isolated studies scattered thorughout the literature in all scientific areas; a single published study is certainly not a preponderance of the evidence.

Additionally, there are other obviousy differences between humans and animals. For example, humans do not go into heat ! Consequently, humans engage in sex for pleasure, to humilate and control, for self-validation, and host of other reasons beyond mating. There is also no disucssion of pederasty among animals, which is the most well known form of human homosexual behavior.

Sixth, as for the cross specices sex--yeah, my aunt' dog used to try to hump my leg when I came over for the holidays. What the hell does that mean?

Seventh, you missed that very famous "Science" front page article (again, 10 years ago) which demonstrates how to control the sexual preference sof fruit flies (again, via a single mutation). This is quite amusing, as it shows a large collection of males flyes all trying to mate other amels, and self-organized into a large ring. I am sure you can find the reference if you look for it.

Eighth, many of these citations consider animals in captivity (without adequate females present). This includes the Rams (which will mount a female if given the chance), the Donkeys, the Penguins, and the Lions. This appears to resemble humans in prisons rather than a "normal" state.

Dude, this is a wiki--you maybe right--but there is no one person writing this article. There is no "you." JohnJohn 08:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to criticize your critical method, "For example, humans do not go into heat! Consequently, humans engage in sex for pleasure" ... a citation for your assumed cause-effect? "You claim that they have mated for life" ... the article needs a citation there, and perhaps the word "apparently", that would indeed be more accurate. But it does not seem to be referring to the 2004 pair, but other pairs, several of them, from the text. A citation is needed. "there are other obvious differences between humans and animals" ... This isn't an article on human sexuality, which appears to be your big issue. What humans do or don't do homosexually is not the subject here. "This appears to resemble humans in prisons" ... please read Wikipedia:No original research, how it "appears" to you is irrelevant. This wiki documents various things, but your or my personal opinion isn't one of them. FT2 (Talk) 11:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


The other issue I have with the above comments is this: "gross mischaracterization to imply any same-sex behavior in animals is somehow 'evidence' of human homosexuality being biological" the article doesn't in fact state the fact you are saying... "There is also no disucssion of pederasty...which is the most well known form of human homosexual behavior." ... Again you see, I think your issue is homosexuality, because I'm not aware that pedastry is either the best known, or most common, form of homosexuality in humans, or indeed that anything about human homosexuality is other than tangetial to this article.
Is it my imagination, or is there an agenda around homosexuality in humans here? "Humans don't go into heat, humans and animals are different, it's a gross misrepresentation to say that homosexuality in humans is biological, pedastry is the best known form of homosexuality..." Just to clarify, the article isn't about human sexuality, human homosexuality, or your views and beliefs about how and why humans or animals may opr may not engage in homosexual activity. FT2 (Talk) 11:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rotten.com

why was the link i added removed? it wasn't anything like a test, it was a relevant article on the subject. article at the rotten.com library

no reason given so i'm putting it back 172.201.226.237

reverted again with no discussion involved :(
172.201.226.237
Removed again - as per my edit summary, http://www.rotten.com is not at all a reliable source - it's a humor website. Also, per WP:SPAM, we don't need to add additional links to outside pages which aren't cited in building the article, we are WP:NOT building a web directory here. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No heterosexual behaviour in animals?

The article "sex" is divided into plant sexuality and human sexuality. This article should provide the basis for the third major category, but as several editors have long agreed above, it doesn't cover male-female animal sexuality or reproduction. Any biologists able to expand the article? ntennis 01:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross Species In Fiction?

Should fictional portrayals of cross-species sex (Fritz the Cat being a good example) be mentioned? I tried to put a note in the section for these fictional portrayals, but could not figure out how to phrase my paragraph, and so the item was never submitted. (Ibaranoff24 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

If you have an idea for a paragraph, but just don't feel that its quite how you'd like it, you can always post what you've got to the talk page and let other editors go over it there. -Smahoney 16:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, here's what I got:
Cross species sex is a frequent theme and/or source of humor in adult-oriented anthropomorphic comic books and animated films, such as Robert Crumb's Fritz the Cat.
Seems a little light. (Ibaranoff24 01:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Don't forget fiction about cross species pairings between humans and animals, humans and mythological creatures, and humans and aliens. There are many science fiction and fantasy romance novels on this subject. (sunandshadow 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Title

I think the "non-human" in the title is unnecessary. Humans are technically animals, but I think it would be plainly obvious to anyone reading the article, or even just the title, that it isn't about animals. Putting in a disclaimer at the beginning saying For human sexuality in particular, see Human sexual behavior or something to that effect is in my opinion preferable to the awkward phrasing of the current title. -Branddobbe 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Simpler is better. ntennis 08:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. see also my post above. This article seems to have gone through a few name changes in the past, though it's hard to follow them all. I think it started out as Homosexuality in animals, then moved to Animal sexuality before being renamed with its current title. Which is deceptive, as heterosexual reproductive behaviour appears to be absent. ntennis 08:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
No objections in over a week so I moved the page to "Animal sexuality". ntennis 01:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree heavily: non-human animal sexuality is much clearer. Animal sexuality could also refer to humans. 71.237.226.28 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)anonymous

I agree with the others that the current title is quite silly. "Animal" is frequently used in the sense of "non-human animals" and although I don't particularly favour that usage, whether it's correct or not has nothing at all to do with the topic as long as it's clear. Someone looking for information on humans clearly wouldn't come here. A disambiguation link if necessary would be fine. Dcoetzee 13:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moles

In the section on moles, it states

"It has also been recorded that certain species of mole will 'rape' new borns of their own species, the biological advantage to this is that when those moles mature and become fertile, they will become pregnant with the sperm of the mole that had mated with them at a very young age."

The problem i see is that can the sperm survive inside the newborns for long enough to them to mature? I am by no means an expert on the subject, and found nothing at a quick glance on the cycle of maturation on moles, but to the best of my knowledge seminal fluid can only sustain the sperm inside the female body for 40 or so hours. That of course as a result of the natural reaction of the female body to destroy the semen immediatly after it enters the vaginal cavity.

As I said, i am no expert on the subject, so I may be far off here, I'm not going to touch it, I'll let someone who knows what they are doing do that, but I felt the need to point this out.

[edit] {{sexual orientation}}

I've restored this tag. Besides the fact that the study of human sexual orientation can not be done in a vaccuum and must consider how other animals behave, this aricle is one of the articles listed in the template. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Could it be retitled "Sexuality" rather than "sexual orientation" then? FT2 (Talk) 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, since sexual orientation is only one aspect of animal sexuality, there seems no reason why the tag has to be located at the top of the article. It could be located in a section on homosexual behavior in animals, or even in the See Also section. kc62301

====>>>>>>This page keeps trying to claim that roy and silo the gay penguins do not go into heterosexual relations. This is a flat out lie. Silo has paired up with a female. http://www.narth.com/docs/penguins.html

[edit] NPOV Debate

I could not find any discussion as to why this article, or its sections, is considered NPOV. If someone wants the NPOV tag on this article, please explain the reasons here, and have ready information that conforms to Wikipedia guidelines (which includes NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research). kc62301


Definitely, this is not an article, it's a campaign! Listing sources is not a substitute for reasoned presentation of information. The title of this page is a self-fulfiller anyway... it's like me making a wikipedia article entitle "why you are wrong", telling you in what ways you are wrong, and then listing a load of techical papers without linking them to anything. It's a phucking joke! This is anthropomorphising animal behaviours and describing in ways that suit an agenda built on prejudices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.82.110 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC).87.112.82.110 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And the default belief that animals only have vanilla heterosexual acts for the purposes of procreation only isn't a POV bias? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to pages on humans

Someone added a link to the Polygyny page in the section on polygynous mating systems. The polygyny article is about humans. Should we link to articles on humans in the other sections (such as monogamy)? I think the mating systems sections could use some improvement, mostly by adding material to the polygynous and promiscuous mating systems. The lack of a good desccription of polygyny in animals is probably what motivated the link to the article on humans. kc62301

Monogamy, promiscuity.... they're human terms too. The only issue I'd have is if the term in humans implies something it doesnt in animals, and is therefore misleading. in which case I'd clarify that anyhow. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I tried. The links I added in the sections on mating systems have been deleted/reverted twice. No big deal to me. I was just trying to balance out the links for whoever put the link into the polygyny section. This is an article on animal sexuality, so the links to human pages don't seem that important to me. Just wondering who deleted/reverted them and why. kc62301
The latest removal was mine. two reasons ultimately decided me on it:
  1. The section intro links to them anyhow, and
  2. Animal sexuality isn't just relevant because of humans (for example, the article on polygyny in humans wouldnt have a section header pointing to the one on animals either).
Basically, it was linked in that section already, so these turned out to be duplications. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The additional links were not originally my idea. Just trying to work with the collaborative process. kc62301
Yup, and nicely. A pleasure editing with you :) FT2 (Talk | email) 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of procreative viewpoint

A recent edit padjusted the article to present the subject in terms of a specific point of view, as procreative v. non-procreative sex. Changes included:

  • Introduction rewritten to center around sex as procreation with other behaviors assumed secondary
  • POV statements such as "Although the primary function of the sexual organs is to generate offspring, many animals exhibit other sexual behaviors such as masturbation and homosexuality, though not to an extent that would imperil the propagation of the species."
  • Removal of intro notes on transgender and other diversity
  • Mating systems and sexual behaviors confused (rape treated as a "system" since it is capable of giving offspring, for example)
  • Non-heterosexual behaviors judged and presented as secondary to "heterosexual" mating behaviors (by creating separate sections, and by implying a split via inaccurate sentences such as "In recent decades, the study of animal sexuality has increased its focus on non-reproductive behaviors". In fact the latter is untrue. Sexuality and behavior as a whole has been studied, and new understandings emerged as a whole from it)

I've reverted this approach since I think it adds a viewpoint which the subject neither needs, nor warrants being split into. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the "viewpoint" that the primary function of animal sexuality is reproductive is any more of a bias than the viewpoint that the primary function of legs is walking, or that of the stomach is digestion. There are eons of evolution behind that, and the very notion of sex is defined with respect to the reproductive act. I know it's PC to say that all behaviors are of equal importance, but that's contrary to evolutionary history, as well as present reality, where most sexual acts in the animal kingdom are procreative. I wasn't trying promote a POV, but to structure the article logically. Why is the dominant form of sexuality not mentioned, but there's a subsection on necrophilia, a statistically negligible phenomenon? Is masturbation the most important form of sexuality? Why lead with that? I don't think it's POV to give more weight to what is by far the dominant behavior; on the contrary, the current article is skewed towards less representative behaviors, many of which are impossible to entire phyla. A Martian reading this article would never gather what most animals do with their sex organs. Djcastel 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a difference between fact and opinion. It's not always an easy one to draw. None the less, a major source of bias in any article is to place a subject into one specific context, and view it from the viewpoint of that context only. Sometimes that can't be avoided, but in this article there is no need. We don't have to place it in any specific context. We can simply describe what animal sexuality covers, factually, without implying in structure or wording that it is "for" this or "because of" that or "directed towards" the other. Given how fast the field evolves and how wrong many prior assumptions about animals and ethology have been, its important not to fall into argument from ignorance. The same applies to animal cognition, intelligence or behavior in general. Its important to describe and avoid undue assumption.
Discussing reproductive behaviors is fine, that's not a problem and should be in the article, indeed. After all, that's much of what animal sexuality is about. But that doesn't mean we have to cast the article as a reproductive viewpoint, or assert that animal sexuality is "about" reproduction or that non-reproductive behaviors are "less" or "more". These are all opinions, personal viewpoints. We can discuss and cover animal sexuality in detail without needing to cast the article into arguing what it's "for". If there is material on significant reproductive or sexual behaviors thats missing, thats different, and factual, and should go in.
But thats separate from asserting that its all reproduction centered. Science is rapidly moving away from "animal sexuality is all about reproduction", or at the least, its a viewpoint that is no longer secure any more. So we shouldn't push that as "the viewpoint".
Hope that explains it a bit. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mouse Picture

Shouldn't this picture be under Erotic Asphyxia since we can't be sure the mouse in the trap is dead? It could just be scarfing. Sick mice.

Is likely a fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.241.29.196 (talk • contribs) .

It does not appear to be fake. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stacy, I know the picture is a fan favorite. However, the original less blurred versions found online clearly look fake. Here's one I googled in haste (not the best I've seen), but it looks even less authentic than the even more blurred wikipedia image. necromouse.ytmnd.com Necromouse website] is dubious at best, IMO. Robotam 14:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it really needed here? Cleary it fits witht he article. But what I'm asking is it "good" to put one of the saddest images I've ever seen in this article? Noit 00:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The seems needlessly violent for an encyclopedia. I've not read many encyclopedias that display content this violent, even on subjects such as death.--IndigoAK200 13:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I also find the picture unnecessary for this article and I believe it should be removed. --Arny 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the picture and think it should stay. Certainly seems relevant to the article. 128.237.247.0 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oral sex

Citations are in need for this section of the entry. Without references, this section is completely useless.

The citations are as stated, in the section above. Its described that way to avoid unnecessary repetition. The academic and other sources it refers to, are listed in the same article one section up. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV/Biased article and "animal homosexuality"

I suggest the proponents of the homosexuality POV explain the following: In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality by stating: "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[3] Also, despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: "Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."[4]ken 17:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

You have tagged the whole article as POV, while your concern vaguely addresses only one section, the homosexuality section. Next, you do not name a single thing wrong with this article. I believe the section on homosexuality is presented in a NPOV manner. Please be MUCH more specific in your criticisms, and tag only the appropriate sections, not the whole article. Thank you.--Andrew c 03:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The substance of this articles relies on the false notion of anthropomorphism and implies that sexual behavior among animals is a chosen preference or trait as opposed to conditioning of lack of suitable opposite sex mates. For example, the article claims that male penguins have been documented to mate for life and cites an example at a zoo. What were the conditions at the zoo that might have led to the male penguins forming bonds? Was there a shortage of female penguins? Were the male penguins rejected by other female penguins? Contrary to the assertion of the author, in one celebrated example at the Central Park Zoo, two so-called gay penguins 'broke-up' upon arrival of a female penguin from another zoo - ref http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html. So much for "gay" penguins and mating for life.

In the section on dolphins, the author selectively quotes Janet Mann from the SF Chronicle article - an obvious case of POV. Here is what the article actually stated:

"Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, says their homosexuality "is about bond formation, not about being sexual for life." In the Wiki article, the "not about being sexual for life" has been cut out - wonder why?

"She said studies show that adult male dolphins form long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added." Note that the Wiki article conveniently excluded explanation for the youthful homosexual behavior.

Also, a rather important aspect of the Chronicle article was missing that would offered some balance. "Scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable." But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."

In the paragraph on Necrophilia and is based on one observation, we are simply expected to believe that the duck knows that it's mate is dead and so had a desire to have sex with it. Should we also assume that the duck is now flying around looking for more corpses to have sex with?

In the Sex for Pleasure paragraph, we have a couple of logical fallacies on display and the author inappropriately cites Snopes as an authority on the issue. First, the author declares a straw-man statement, "It is a common urban myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans (and perhaps dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction." Of course nobody is propagating this urban myth other than the author of the article. The author also offers up two choices assuming no other choice exists. It's not about pleasure or reproduction, but the reproductive biology that causes the animal to seek out sex which in turn leads to reproduction. Again, the author attempts to anthropomorphize the animal into a person as though an animal would understand the connection of pleasurable sex with reproduction. 65.33.143.165 00:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have to disagree with your POV tag. Penguins and other birds are widely documented to engage in exclusively same-sex bonds, and the fact that such relations among other animals may not be a matter of "chosen preference" in no way diminishes their value as examples of variation in animal sexuality. The moralistic admonitions of the Chronicle article are out of place here, and as for your other comments, please feel free to edit the article as you see fit. I will however remove the POV tag as it is patently unjustified. Haiduc 00:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


Before contributors proposing some kind of conspiracy theory edit more on the topic, they might like to notice the conclusion of that section. Here it is again:
"Same-sex sexual behavior should only be identified as a sexual orientation with caution. In humans the behavior is considered distinct from the orientation - many heterosexuals engage in same-sex behavior at times, and many homosexuals have heterosexual lifestyles. In animals this distinction is still being explored."
This is accurate, and neutral. It was added by myself, and I also added much of the other material. So much for some conspiracy of proponents mysteriously choosing material. The section refers clearly to "same sex sexual behavior" and does not attempt to draw analogy with human sexuality. Most of the above points are not an issue since animals are not being discussed as "sexual orientation" and there is no speculation made as to motive. In fact that is all a red herring and the only place such discussion exists is on this talk page. The article itself carefully restricts its content to sexual behaviors as documented, which animals have been observed to undertake for whatever motives and reasons that may be. Hopefully a careful re-read will allow this spurious debate of viewpoints that aren't actually in the article, to be put to bed. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observer Bias

The article mentions several times that observer bias may be the cause of such common animal behaviors being unknown. Would it not be safe to say that observer bias in today's world is just as strong but in the opposite direction, i.e. that the scientific world today actively and specifically tries to find things that go against traditional mores so as to discredit them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

For example, the focus on mounting may reflect prejudices that male homosexuality is primarily defined by anal sex and that female homosexuality is primarily defined by assumption of a symbolic male role? This could be a valid point, perhaps, and a variation on the "anthropomorphism" argument (essentially, that human interpretations of animal behaviour say more about humans' projection of their own issues onto animals than about the animals themselves). If you've got sources and you're prepared to cite them, by all means go to it! --7Kim 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oslo gay animal show draws crowds

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6066606.stm

Not sure whether this can be of use but it might have a couple of quotes. This page is quite controvertial enough without adding anything! 195.10.3.194 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bestiality

Bestiality being cross species sexual behavior between humans and animals, shouldn't there be a paragraph on it? (sunandshadow 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

  • Maybe just a "see also". In fact, I'm gonna do it right now. Miltopia 11:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fill in the blank

"Sex between adults and sexually immature ___________" - so, what's the best word for this header in the article? It was "individuals", I changed it to "specimens" but I think there's a better word out there. Any ideas? Miltopia 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Sex between adults and juveniles" - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Haha, I don't know if that would go over well with people reading it. Is that a term for animals as well? Miltopia 14:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It is used frequently. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that seems better than "individuals" so I went ahead and changed it. Miltopia 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rape and apparently coercive sex

I'm not experienced enough to edit and add links and citations into articles yet. I have a link that will fit this section if someone is willing to add it and write a bit of an content for it. http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Aves: Anatidae) Yes you saw that right. It is a scientific document and won an Ig Noble award (http://www.improb.com/). It is probably not enough to support the whole section, but worth a mention.--72.140.175.249 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Added to article - thanks. What's more relevant is the information that the author isnt just some guy having a laugh, he works for the Rotterdam Natural History Museum. That's more solid. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I do have to wonder about homosexual acts in a duck of the family "Anas" :) FT2 (Talk | email) 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has tried to check the source of the alleged elephant-rhino rape. It doesn't seem to be based on facts. http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=5323 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.113.26 (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed fetish section

[edit] Original Section

Fetishist 3 years old tomcat.
Fetishist 3 years old tomcat.

Although not often reported, it appears animals, or primates at the least, are able to sexualize inanimate objects in a manner similar to human sexual fetishes.

Not only will an animal that has a habitual object for masturbation sometimes appear to sexualize that object, but in some cases primates have generalized that to sexualize kinds of objects in a class where no prior sexual connection exists -- similar to human fetishes.

Thus Gabriel, a chimpanzee at the Southwest National Primate Research Center, is said to have a shoe fetish (or possibly a leather fetish) according to caretaker Bert Barrera, and it is reported (probably referring to the same individual) that:

"A male chimpanzee raised in captivity developed a bit of a shoe fetish, masturbating obsessively by rubbing his caretaker's leather boot." mysanantonio.com drsusanblock.com.

The sexualization of objects or locations is also well recognized in the breeding world. So for example, stallions may often 'drop' (become sexually aroused) upon visiting a location where they have been allowed to have sex before, or upon seeing a stimulus previously associated with sexual activity such as an artificial vagina. [citation needed]

In this case however, the primary structure is Pavlovian conditioning, and the fetishistic association is due to a conditioned response (or association) formed with a distinctive 'reward'. Human fetishism can very also be traced back to similar or near-identical conditioning: likewise based upon the Pavlovian association between an erotic sensation or anticipation, and objects which become immediately associated with that activity. (See also: operant conditioning)

Washoe, a chimpanzee who has been taught American Sign Language, has been reported to frequently make the sign for "tickle me" to researchers. Although not a sexual act per se, tickling is none the less recognized as a fetish in some contexts. (See: Tickling fetish)

[edit] Rationale for removal

I have removed the "fetish" section and put it here. It seems to be unclear on what a fetish is, namely "an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression" (from Merriam Webster online here).

The page content discussed animals masturbating using objects (not fetishism), and conditioning (not fetishism). The use of the term seems to come from the zookeeper quote, but a zookeeper - while a reliable source for observations of animal sexual behaviours - is not a reliable source for analysis of this behaviour as fetishism.

The piece ends with a discussion of "tickling" which is non-sexual. The fact that some humans have this fetish says nothing. -- cmhTC 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So put it under masturbation. It might not be a fetish, but then that is sort of a vague thing even in people.--Filll 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
A fetish, in the paraphilic sense, is the sexualization of an inanimate object (a shoe, a piece of clothing, or similar). In that sense the above examples are parallels to human fetish, and accurately described. The sources also describe them as such. I think it's correct as was. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I think that it should be changed back to "Non-Human Animal Sexuality". It is clearer and avoids confusion. 71.237.226.28 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)anonymous

[edit] Polygamy definition

Polygamy: One or more males have an exclusive relationship with one or more females.

There is a flaw in the definition: it also defines monogamy, since it can be reduced to "One male have an exclusive relationship with one female." because both "one or more" phrases can mean both "one" or "more". The more precise definition should be something like: "Polygamy: One male has an exclusive relationship with more females and/or one female has an exclusive relationship with more males." Such phrase is clumsy though, so it would be nice if someone would come up with a better solution. --Arny 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about simply "someone who has an exclusive relationship with multiple partners"? Dcoetzee 12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest "Polygamy is a mating system in which one animal forms concurrent pairbonds with multiple other animals"? --7Kim 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anal Bison

No axe to grind here, but does anyone have an original reference for the statements about anal penetration by bison and the Okipa festival (for which Wiki article on Okipa suggests only male/female intercourse). Google reveals thousands of references, but they all seem to be quoting each other, with minor variations on the same words, and none looks anything like an original scientific reference. So i'm beginning to wonder if this is just a myth. Which would perhaps be a pity, but... --Wreader 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Scientific POV Original Research

This article is a far cry from anything you'd read in a real biology text, and is riddled with anthropomorphizing and agenda-pushing. I note only some of the more obvious flaws.

  • Little discussion of heterosexual coupling, by far the statistically dominant form of animal sexuality. This article used to be called "Homosexuality in animals". Despite the renaming, it still has the same narrow agenda of trying to show that this or that human sexual behavior is natural, hence the inordinate focus on behaviors that are of lesser biological and evolutionary consequence.
  • Lack of contextualization for same-sex coupling behaviors. These behaviors differ in many substantial ways from the human construct "homosexuality", which is why the term is not ordinarily applied in scientific literature. Quotes are selected from controversial researchers to promote a specific view.
  • "Rape" is not a meaningful construct outside of humans. What does it mean for an animal to give consent?
  • "Fetish" is another anthropomorphism. How much scientific literature is there on this? Is this a widespread phenomenon or a curious oddity?
  • Ditto for "Necrophilia". Does the duck really prefer a cadaver, or is this just mindless opportunistic coupling (same for examples above)? Oh, and by the way, an Ig Nobel prize is not a good thing.

I don't expect any of these things to change until we get some editors who are concerned more with biology than sexual politics. The fact that the opposite is the case is shown by the fact that the constructs of the latter are used throughout the article. Step one for improving the article is to look at a real biology textbook treatment of the subject, instead of cherry-picking primary sources to construct an argument. Djcastel 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Comments:
  • I think I have to part agree and part disagree with the above. If there was a comprehensive biology textbook, big enough to give animal sexuality its own chapter, then yes, there would be a lot of coverage of heterosexuality in that chapter. Since that is a large topic in its own right, probably there should be two articles: "animal sexuality (heterosexual)" and "animal sexuality (other aspects)". Or maybe an umbrella topic which links to both.
  • I've changed the term rape as you noted, to reflect that it is "apparently under duress or coercion". The actions described are strong ones, more than just "persistent requesting", but the term "rape" may not be the right one to use even so.
  • Necrophilia is the correct term for sexual acts to a dead body, contrasted with rape which is more to do with the state of mind of the parties (where its less clear what an animals "state of mind" is). I've therefore left this one, it seems the right term, given the description and writings on it.
  • Likewise Ive left "fetish". A fetish does have a clinical definition, which is both used in sources and seems to be unambiguous -- attachment to and arousal by an object. The literature, though not often described in the academic literature, is unambiguously describing that, and the species is one close to humans.
Hope this helps clean some of these, at least. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all that Djcastel has said. The article has parts basically amounting to "Bacteria clearly masturbate, which can be sourced with this site here where you can see a video of a bacterium masturbating; and armadillos perform autofellatio, as evidenced by that site where one owner claims they do that, so it must be true". This is total, 100% agenda-driven original research. Oh, and necrophilia does mean you are attracted to corpses. Similarly, the fact that you've seen a toad "copulate" with a clump of earth does not mean it has a clump fetish.--Anonymous44 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image

I am a hearty supporter the no-censorship policy. However, something seems wrong about keeping the picture of the boy and the dog. Consensual sex act images are one thing, but a dog humping a minor child? VanTucky 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that was in extremely bad taste and I removed it, probably in a rude fashion. And while not logged in (gasp!) --Ed Seneca

[edit] Serious question.

This article is presented as a general article about non-human animal sexual behaviour.

If animal homosexuality is only a small part of its subject matter, why is it marked as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies? If, as it seems, the article began life as an article specifically about homosexuality in animals, I can well understand that the marking is a legacy from that time. Given that it has clearly expanded far beyond that original narrow focus and there is a separate article covering homosexuality in animals, perhaps its connection to LGBT studies has become sufficiently attenuated that keeping this marker is no longer warranted. --7Kim 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that removing this marker would be a good idea, so we could fork off most of the LGBT-specific interests to the "Homosexuality in animals" article, and this could be a general biology article, like Plant sexuality, which branches out of Sexual reproduction. Then we could provide an overview of the evolution of sexual differentiation in animals, sexual morphology, mating, courtship, sexual selection, assortative mating, etc., and then link out to the more specialized articles in these areas. Djcastel 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I suspect that if the marker is removed the article just might be able to discuss all aspects of its professed subject rather than being shackled to our society's obsession with (justifying | excoriating) homosexuality. :-/ Seriously, though, now that someone has seconded the idea, I will remove the marker on 10 June unless someone offers a persuasive argument against doing so. --7Kim 08:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the contents do not match the title. "Sexual behavior" would probably be about sexual behavior in general. It's not clear what is a better title for this article, that covers the range of variations of behaviors. I've RFC'ed it to get input from others - see below. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual cannibalism?

Anyone think this should be briefly noted on this page in addition to having its own page? --BBrucker2 23:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that could use a brief summary section with a {{main}} link. Dcoetzee 04:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Is there a credible source view that cannibalism is a sexual act? In spiders it's part of the sexual act ... does that count? FT2 (Talk | email) 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: contents and title

Input is sought concerning the mismatch between the article's contents, and its title. The present contents neatly cover the range of animal sexual behaviors, which include almost every kind of sexual behavior known to human beings. That's a valuable article on its own. But really, the main article on animal sexual behavior should be one that gives primacy to "usual" mating behaviors in a general sense (for example rutt season, different mating systems, sexual displays, den/nest building, male-male competition to breed, copulatory behaviors, matters which are "sexual behaviors"), and puts the wider range of sexual behaviors which exist into a Summary style section leading to the full text here as a separate article.

Ideally then we'd have two articles: one covering sexual behavior (including a summary style section for "sexual variations" or whatever its called), and also a separate article on the latter, something like "variations of sexuality in animals". I'm not sure what titles, but you get the idea.

The reason for RFC is two concerns:

  1. How do we showcase "ordinary" sexual-related behaviors without excessively marginalizing sexual behaviors that we might consider "less usual" or which aren't directly connected with breeding, and non-neutrally describing them as "less normal" (which they often aren't, for example masturbation)?
  2. What are appropriate good titles for these two articles and for the new section?

The other side is, that the title "animal sexuality" could mean how animals "do" sex, akin to human sexuality, the range of ways sex is undertaken, rather than specifically about courtship or breeding rituals. Its hard to know which viewpoint is better for the subject.

I can see a huge NPOV problem in this area, over whether this or that non-heterosexual sexual behavior is presented as "normal" or "low weight", or how the articles or sections should be described. Probably a lot hinges on the article titles which the two are given. I'd like input before we accidentally end up ripping a focussed stable article apart by diving into major change in this area. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I suggest using the Plant sexuality article as a starting point in terms of general structure, focusing on sexual mechanisms, morphology, and evolution. In other words, a dry biological article without thinly veiled anthropomorphisms. This is easier to do with plants than with animals, so I think a look at that article might help us toward the right direction. Djcastel 20:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I would like to at least remove the "non-human" from the title for now, renaming to "Animal sexual behavior". This is the only article on animals that pedantically specifies "non-human" in the title. Elsewhere, it is simply assumed from the context that humans are not specifically treated, though we can certainly link to the human sexuality article from this one. Djcastel 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the article

Why "Non-human animal sexual behavior"? Why not just "Animal sexual behavior"? We do not have any human animal sexual behavior. Is there anything more behind it? Miraceti 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Humans are animals. "Animal sexual behavior" would include humans. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There's terrible inconsistency in cases like this. What about animal language - why not rename it non-human animal language? Or a little closer to home, what about homosexuality in animals? There's not really any need to talk about humans in an article on animal sexual behavior - we're only one species. Having something about this at Naming conventions would help. It's a little problematic that there's no word for a non-human animal, but its too contrived and PC to name things this way. Richard001 03:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non-human

Humans constitute very small subset of animals. So i removed "Non-human" from the title, but left a disambig for humans. Thanks. Lara_bran 04:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophilia among animals

I heard from somewhere that there are no gender or age barriers for sexual activity among primates, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. Nevertheless, has pedophilia been observed among animals? I think that it possibly exists in bonobo society. Zachorious 08:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You might wanna have a look at the zoological or biosocial material included in Adult-child sex so far (which happens to be a very new article), as well as the discussions pertaining it on its corresponding talkpage. --Tlatosmd 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like newcomers to the article keep editing it out because nobody got around to re-name our article to anything like adult-juvenile sex yet. Here is a bit more stable version. --Tlatosmd (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In case anybody is still interested in this topic, quote psychiatrist Jay R. Feierman, in the preface to the book Pedophilia: Biosocial dimensions, a collective work by the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (publisher of Journal of Sex Research and Annual Review of Sex Research; see for their involvement with this book here, under the headline Researching "Touchy" Sex Topics):

[...] "most of the lay and professional literature, although voluminous, reflect a narrow anthropo-, ethno-, and chronocentrism that precludes any real understanding of the topic with anything more than the preconceptions of our times. The writing is anthropocentric because the topic often is discussed as though humans were the only species in which sexual behavior between adults and nonadults is found. The writing is ethnocentric because the behavior is discussed as though it were, somehow, peculiar to Western industrialized societies. The writing is chronocentric because the behavior is discussed as though it were a recent development in the history of the human species. All of these ‘-centrisms’ obscure the fact that the behavior is seen in other species, societies, and times and has to be understood within these broader contexts." (Feierman, J. (ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990)

Combining that book with the other scientific large-scale biosocial analysis of paedophilia by Bleibtreu-Ehrenberg 1985/88, it seems that consensual sexual activity between juveniles and adults deserves a similar headline as the one you're quoting in the article here as 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality. Quite a large deal of it appears to not be due to social incompetence or lack of access to willing adult partners as that hyena case cited in this article here makes it out to be. --TlatoSMD (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bondage

Somebody please mention the question of this connection: Talk:Bondage_(BDSM)#Bondage_in_cats. Jidanni (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)