NYT: Homosexuality and Animals

[theapportioner]

He died of malnutrition.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Gezzz. I hope not.

[Helm]

Was my post in this thread ignored because it was stupid or something? I'd really like to discuss some of the aspects of this topic

[Big McLargehuge]

One thing I would like to know is how are these homosexual animals treated in their groups? Especially, how are the animals who usually form groups with a "head" treated? I mean, does the alpha-male ignore the other homosexual animals because as such they do not pose a threat to his dominance?

[sspadowsky]

And is their roost as tastefully decorated as one might expect?

[kellychaos]

Sounds like a new Discovery Channel program < insert funny play on words for gay animal home improvement show > .

[da blob]

Originally Posted by Helm

what purpose can same-sex mating serve in a natural environment? The purpose of sexual intercourse in nature is to procreate the species, not to have fun fucking. Doesn't an animal that cannot spawn progeny (lol) become useless instinctively.
(...)
Either a few natural abberation cases somehow survived natural clensing (and we human observers might have been more than a little involved in that) and spread their defective genes, or a large fraction of our academic knowledge on instinctual urges is flawed in some ways. The incidents seem far too widespread for the first answer to be completely valid...

Your first assumption is indeed a viable one. Because of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (population genetics). I. e. as deletere as a given recessive might be, it will not disapear from a population, rather, an equilibrium will establish itself over time, with a more or less constant proportion of affected and carriers.
BTW, "deletere" is used in respect to evolution - i.e. if we consider the propagation of his genetic material as an individual's only purpose. Not any kind of "moral" connotation here of course.

Originally Posted by Helm

For humans, the pleasure derived from sex serves as additional urging towards mating, but given that we have a degree of free will the orgasm factor would be a pretty big drive for people if we could theoretically remove the instinctual hardwiring. So for people, it sort of makes sense for nature to provide additional means of persuasion to procreate. But most animals are anything but self-aware. Instinctual automations that would and indeed can procreate based on sort-of scripted behaviour. So why on earth would they fuck for fun and not for children?

(edited)


Bonobos do not fuck for fun actually, having sex is a mean of reducing tension among individual (hierarchic tensions). So it does serve an evolutionary purpose, maintaining the social group's cohesion = the survival rate. In the penguins' case cited above, I believe it is not an occurence of "fucking for fun" either - they indeed seeked procreation, too bad they chose a mate of the wrong sex.
On the other hand, I used to have a stud dog whom we had perform almost exclusively via AI. As all of the dogs I have known in this case, not only was there absolutely no problem in collecting him without any female in oestrus nearby, he actually seeked it. He started to ask to be put on the table where we used to put him for the collection whenever we had visitors with a dog (be it male or female), then later on whenever we had visitors at all. [And of course whenever one of our own bitches were in heat, but this would count as reproductive instinct, although someow flawed].
I don't know what conclusion to draw from this, except that genital pleasure does exist in higher mammals, and not only as a tension reducer mean as in the bonobos' case, but for its own sake. Yet it is still far from what we call "sexuality". And it is indeed a case where human intervention has a lot to do with the "deviation of instinct", on a large and small time-scale as well (long time domesticated animals + a matter of "education" of the individual by man).
It kinda looks like genital pleasure raises to counterbalance "civilisation's" effects - them being, to widen the gap between the self-conscious animal and his instincts.


But then, I don't know, just thinking out loud.

[da blob]

Sorry for the typos / misspellings / grammar errors. Too lazy to correct.
I am no native english speaker, remember, so fuque.

[mburbank]

Sonny Bonobo.

[Helm]

Originally Posted by da blob

Your first assumption is indeed a viable one. Because of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (population genetics). I. e. as deletere as a given recessive might be, it will not disapear from a population, rather, an equilibrium will establish itself over time, with a more or less constant proportion of affected and carriers.
BTW, "deletere" is used in respect to evolution - i.e. if we consider the propagation of his genetic material as an individual's only purpose. Not any kind of "moral" connotation here of course.

So you can see it as a natural error that due to a number of factors survives... In addition to stress removal as you say below I can see how this could be true. Taking into account all the higher mammals that masturbate also... So a combination of misdirected instinct, possibility of natural error, stress removal and also habitualization and human intervention. This works for me, although it's obvious that more information needs to be catalogued. The gulls still don't make sense.

And obviously my interest in the subject isn't due to some moral issue, at least not in a primary way. If it turned out that homosexualism is somehow naturally validated then I suppose it would change my viewpoint on the subject somewhat. But not in a very drastic way because natural behaviour, as it was noted does not equal morally acceptable behaviour to begin with.

I don't know what conclusion to draw from this, except that genital pleasure does exist in higher mammals, and not only as a tension reducer mean as in the bonobos' case, but for its own sake. Yet it is still far from what we call "sexuality".

I know I'm taking this a bit far, but why? Why do higher mammals differ in this way from more basic organisms. In the deterministic process that prevades evolution, what purpose in terms of efficiency does sexual pleasure serve? Given modern understanding of evolution, it doesn't seem to do much, actually. It is only if one supposes that sexual pleasure or indeed any other psychosomatic sensory perception plays an intergal role in nature's plan for evolved lifeforms that any of this makes sense!


And don't worry, I'm greek so english isn't my first language either and besides, all the americans aren't paying attention anymore.

[da blob]

Originally Posted by Helm

So you can see it as a natural error that due to a number of factors survives... In addition to stress removal as you say below I can see how this could be true. Taking into account all the higher mammals that masturbate also... So a combination of misdirected instinct, possibility of natural error, stress removal and also habitualization and human intervention. This works for me, although it's obvious that more information needs to be catalogued. The gulls still don't make sense.

Agreed. Except that I dunno why the gulls' case wouldn't make any less sense. Cause they're only birds ? And besides, given the way the article reads, I'm not exactly sure there's any "sexuality" involved in their so-called homosexuality. I mean, two homosexual female gulls, what would they do ? Stick their beaks up one another's, huh, hole (don't know the proper term for birds in english) ? Hahahah I'd love to see that. So my guess is that it's a kind of mate-like bond to an individual of the same sex, nothing "homosexual" per se.

Originally Posted by Helm

I know I'm taking this a bit far, but why? Why do higher mammals differ in this way from more basic organisms. In the deterministic process that prevades evolution, what purpose in terms of efficiency does sexual pleasure serve? Given modern understanding of evolution, it doesn't seem to do much, actually. It is only if one supposes that sexual pleasure or indeed any other psychosomatic sensory perception plays an intergal role in nature's plan for evolved lifeforms that any of this makes sense!

I did give my point of view on the "why" : "It kinda looks like genital pleasure raises to counterbalance "civilisation's" effects - them being, to widen the gap between the self-conscious animal and his instincts. "
Well of course this would apply to man only, and *maybe* to the species his influence has taken afar from their "wild" status (domestication). But maybe we could see genital pleasure as an incentive to mate over other contradictory instincts, said pleasure existing in many species in a more basic form - kinda like the pleasure obtained from eating certain particularly tasty foods, which does exist in many species, too.
And then as culturalization (duh is this a word ?) happens, a powerful incentive (i.e. orgasm as we know it) has been selected as more "sex driven" individuals have had a better reproductive success, when culture may have lessened the pure reproductive instinct or gotten in its way. For instance, culture has created codes / taboos and other frames for reproduction to be fitted in, so that pure reproductive instinct cannot be fullfilled as it would be in animals. Other example - me. I do not intend to have any children - educated decision, where mind / consciousness has blocked the possible instincts that might have surfaced. So, the only chance for my genes to be spread would be that I'd be sex-driven enough (highly motivated by sexual pleasure) so that THIS would overcome my conscious reflexion. Forgetting about contraception as the urge for pleasure would preceed over reflexion. Thank God I'm not that dumb hahaha.
OK, so this may give an explaination for man, but hardly for mammals, even the higher ones. Because there's no culture / reflexion / self consciousness to counterbalance. But as I said earlier, there might be other things, like, as an animal's life pattern gets more complicated as he gets higher on the scale, the most important instinct has to have stronger incentive so as to overcome whatever else is getting in the way at the moment (other instincts / environmental variables).


Tell me if I do not quite make sense, it's 2:30 here so huh I might be somehow slow brained at the moment.

[ziggytrix]

i'm paying attention.

the arguable existence of a genetic predisposition toward homosexually and the personal belief that it doesn't hurt anyone make me neutral on the morailty of it.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by Helm

And obviously my interest in the subject isn't due to some moral issue, at least not in a primary way. If it turned out that homosexualism is somehow naturally validated then I suppose it would change my viewpoint on the subject somewhat. But not in a very drastic way because natural behaviour, as it was noted does not equal morally acceptable behaviour to begin with.

It's homosexuality, not homosexualism.

And I thought you Greeks liked this sort of thing?

[Helm]

like, as an animal's life pattern gets more complicated as he gets higher on the scale, the most important instinct has to have stronger incentive so as to overcome whatever else is getting in the way at the moment (other instincts / environmental variables).

That's basically what seems to be the case. Do you see that as man becomes more cerebral and less emotional, his sexual drive could gradually wither to nothing? Could man reach a point where he is -from an evolutionary standpoint- useless, or will some other instinctual failsafe come into play?

I am interested in this topic so much because I am trying to be free from instinctual drives.


Anyway, thanks for your interesting replies. It's a good thing this thread didn't deteriorate to yet another hopeless oao vs. whomever thing. We have enough of those.

the arguable existence of a genetic predisposition toward homosexually and the personal belief that it doesn't hurt anyone make me neutral on the morailty of it.

I morally view heterosexuality and homosexuality to be equal. That is to say, that both practises are -whether natural or not- animal behaviour, and as my personal philosophy calls for their gradual abandonment. Man should choose what he wants to be, and do. I do not see anything particularily different with homosexuality since heterosexuality doesn't strictly mean making babies either. I do see however, mankind in their reactionary attempt towards nature, trying to keep the good stuff about sex going for them, while getting the whole making babies deal out of the way. Which is a simplistic stance. In that sense, what we are talking about, how nature uses pleasure to make sure we mate, is a defective practice.

Man should stop trying to regulate the conditions under we indulges in his instinctual urges, and start trying to control those urges themselves.

It's homosexuality, not homosexualism.

And I thought you Greeks liked this sort of thing?

Do you like, cry every time I make a mistake, or what? And that's like asking if all americans are mcdonalds sustained, politically inept white trash. Oh, wait!

[AChimp]

Admit it, though. All you Greeks love the bum secks.

[Jeanette X]

It's homosexuality, not homosexualism.

And I thought you Greeks liked this sort of thing?

Do you like, cry every time I make a mistake, or what? And that's like asking if all americans are mcdonalds sustained, politically inept white trash. Oh, wait! [/quote]

Helm, I didn't mean it was a bad thing. Ancient Greece is the cradle of western civilization, and the fact that the didn't lynch great people like Sappho for being homosexual makes them pretty damn cool in my book.

[AChimp]

Yeah, but, you know... still.

[da blob]

Originally Posted by Helm

Do you see that as man becomes more cerebral and less emotional, his sexual drive could gradually wither to nothing? Could man reach a point where he is -from an evolutionary standpoint- useless, or will some other instinctual failsafe come into play?
I am interested in this topic so much because I am trying to be free from instinctual drives.

I think it depends on which level.
At an individual level, it might be possible as I personally believe in the power of mind over flesh, however I do not know whether it'd be possible to totally "anihilate" those instinctual drives, as much as to "lock" them.
In an evolutionary perspective, it is IMO simply not possible that humans evolve away from their instincts unless they evolve towards another mean of reproduction than sexual pairing - like parthenogenesis or whatever else. Which is not likely as sexuated reproduction seems to be the most "evolved" way of spreading genes so far. Unless something new appears, you never know.

Well my personnal opinion is that as much as a thinking animal as we are, it is still in our nature to be animals. I have been in contact with many animals, observed their group behaviours as well as those of humans with a very objective eye, and I've found this to be true, that most humans are exclusively instinct driven, not any less than any other animal. Far from allowing the masses to free themselves from their instincts' slavery, their ability for reflexion is mostly used to serve those instincts. Maybe this is nature's revenge against civilization.

My own path of reflexion on the subject has led me to believe that to free myself from my instincts as much as possible I need to aknowledge them, for what they are, no more but no less. I feel in no way lessened by the aknowledgement of being an animal in nature, and knowing my instincts and recognizing them when they are at work allows me to use my mind to control / shut / work around them better than trying to anihilate them.

In that sense, what we are talking about, how nature uses pleasure to make sure we mate, is a defective practice.

But none of nature's way is a sure, straight, flawless one. There are bugs everywhere and this is why there is a need for evolution after all. Like, what about reproduction instinct being in contradiction with survival instinct, it can lead to pretty unefficient situations in some animals. But on the whole there will be small adjustments made here and there and it'll always end up working. Or the species will disappear. So I guess we'll see if the sexual pleasure thing was a bad idea in a "few" (hahahaha) years, but I agree with you that it has the potential for a "bad idea", evolution-wise.

Man should stop trying to regulate the conditions under we indulges in his instinctual urges, and start trying to control those urges themselves.

Agreed. However most can not, and do not even want to.

And that's like asking if all americans are mcdonalds sustained, politically inept white trash. Oh, wait!

I didn't say it. Everybody, *look* how I didn't even said a single word about this.
Mwahahahahahaha

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by da blob

Bonobos do not fuck for fun actually, having sex is a mean of reducing tension among individual (hierarchic tensions).

I should HOPE not. I mean, have you SEEN Cher? Why would Sonny Bonobo fuck HER for fun?

*Ba-dum, CSHHHH!*

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Try the veal!



EDIT: sorry, didn't realize I stole Max's joke.

[Helm]

Helm, I didn't mean it was a bad thing. Ancient Greece is the cradle of western civilization, and the fact that the didn't lynch great people like Sappho for being homosexual makes them pretty damn cool in my book.

It's a stereotype, generally. Blatant homosexualism (public aknowledgement of engaging in anal penetration. Say it with me. anal penetration) was frowned upon in ancient greece. Homosexuality in ancient greece was more of the fondle and caress variety. Nevertheless in modern days anal sex is as popular in greece as it is in every other part of the western (at least) world. I see nothing especially bad about it, it is just the same as any other sort of sexual practice.

Admit it, though. All you Greeks love the bum secks.

I like goats.

however I do not know whether it'd be possible to totally "anihilate" those instinctual drives, as much as to "lock" them.

Freedom, for me is defined on the level of application. So it's not so much a matter of completely annihilating the instinctual drives, as it is to be able to completely override them when it comes to deciding and acting. Freedom is action. I operate under the premise that the less you indulge your instinctual needs, the more tame they become. This is not proven, but from personal experience all the other instincts (dominance, affection, self-preservation etc) besides the sexual have indeed become a smaller part of my life than they used to be. The sexual drive will just have to die out with age, it seems.

Well my personnal opinion is that as much as a thinking animal as we are, it is still in our nature to be animals. I have been in contact with many animals, observed their group behaviours as well as those of humans with a very objective eye, and I've found this to be true, that most humans are exclusively instinct driven, not any less than any other animal.

I agree completely. And society is built around fortifying our basic instincts.

Far from allowing the masses to free themselves from their instincts' slavery, their ability for reflexion is mostly used to serve those instincts.

It is exactly why I say that the defining moment of freedom is in action, and not reflection. Too many people have been the theorists of their philosophy and not actual practitioners simply because it is so difficult to go against your nature.

I need to aknowledge them, for what they are, no more but no less.

When I say deny one's instinct I do not mean to disregard it. Obviously one needs to understand what it is, how it operates and why it does so.

However most can not, and do not even want to.

I believe it is in everyone's power to do so, under the proper conditioning. And it is not a question of will. It is logically imperative, if one must be free. One's motives, when under the influence of instinct are invalid in many ways. As is the drug abuser's motives, when under the influence. It is exactly because I desire to be the master of my own will, that I am under logical obligation to render my instinct obsolete.

[Immortal Goat]

Originally Posted by Helm

I like goats.

OMG, ARE YOU LIEK, HITTING ON ME?

[Helm]

I gotta poop real bad.

[theapportioner]

Good idea. Clean out that orifice before teh bum secks.