Seeking a New Lens to Study Same-Sex Behavior in Animals

As a former zoo volunteer, I can tell you definitively that if a behavior is available to a given animal, sooner or later, that animal will do it; including things that seem pointless to human observers. For example, I remember when the orangutans at the National Zoo stole an entire box of rubber gloves and used them as chewing gum. The keepers had to pay the orangutans with raisins to “buy back” the glove fragments. Chewing rubber gloves, of course, does not contribute to the animals’ evolutionary fitness; but they did it anyway, because it was fun. So why shouldn’t animals engage in same-sex contacts? It’s harmless, and it’s probably fun, too.

There could also be an evolutionary benefit. I'd read there are links between high cortisol exposure in the womb (stress in the mom--more likely due to scarce resources in the past) and increased incidence of homosexuality in offspring. In a time of stress, having more mouths to feed isn't ideal so taking a productive member of society out of the reproductive pool could be evolutionarily helpful for the social group -- another provider without the added creation of additional mouths to feed. It would be interesting if there are similar findings in other animals.

Perhaps I need to re-read this too-brief article. My immediate reflection is that humans have been trained in various ways to respect needs and to disregard wants. This training has been largely unsuccessful, I BELIEVE, because the control for each is distinct from the other. Wants have much stronger bases for success, both because they are so immediately responsive and because they are so nonjudgmental. Why this might be similar in other species is not important to me but I suspect it is. Animals, and perhaps plants, do not question certain inalienable rights. Perhaps they communicate with their higher power more directly. The beauty of animal relationships is so little understood because, I believe, we lack interest, And if we notice, we make up euphemistic fairy tales to hide our embarrassments and to advance our biases.

"The team was careful not to draw explicit links to any aspects of human culture, including L.G.B.T.Q. communities." In fact this is precisely what this is. It is also anthropomorphization of animal behaviors, especially anything below highly developed mammals. Hmm. Anyone ever see a dog hump a sofa? Gee, how would these "scientists" classify such "behavior?" What would this dog's sexual orientation be? "Questioning?" perhaps? Perhaps the actions perceived or interpreted as "same sex" behavior are simply because the animals or organisms are too "dumb" to figure out what's what? That the evolutionary model for animals includes non-reproductive "errors" and deviations is axiomatic. The idea that primates or crabs have any sexual orientation as implied in this article is absolutely absurd. More likely this is just another popular hustle aimed at obtaining funding for non-white, non-male, non-straight "researchers," which I am all for. Everyone should have equal opportunity to misrepresent science. Certainly the white, straight, men have had more than their fair share.

It is fascinating that every reasonably educated person across the globe could tell you that our closest relative in the animal kingdom is the chimpanzee; and yet most have never heard of the bonobo - just as near to humans as chimpanzees are in the taxonomy of species. Anything to do with the sexual habits of the bonobo species I wonder? They have sex with anyone and everyone, male and female, and use sex to smooth social relations, even just to say 'thank you' - and they delight in it, amazingly! And they live in generally harmonious matriarchal societies, likely a consequence of their liberal sexual habits - they like to love, it seems. Humans live in constant denial of their nature; any good psychologist will tell you that. That we collectively black out the existence of our 'other cousins' is telling indeed. As are the silly and dishonest debates that continue about homosexuality -across millenia at this stage.

Utterly dishonest about the biological approach to sex in life and in the animal kingdom. Homosexuality is a key case for which understanding has been sought for decades as homosexual parents do not have offspring with half of the genes of each. This is a Big Deal in biology. A Big Riddle Needing A Better Answer. Different perspectives are welcome. The one perspective not welcome is that instead of science switch to gender fluidity dogmas of people who don’t do biology but do fads as more fun and then make a ruckus about biology. Dr. McClintock forever.

Sorry but the question becomes mute when you learn 10 percent of the American population suffered damages from artificial estrogen in the womb. 100 to 500 birth control pills a day in the womb can do a lot of gender bending. google CDC DES Information and see for yourself. They just dont mention that number of 8-10 million exposed is out of 100 million births in this time.

Opportunistic sex in the primordial pond, and here we are.

"sexual deviation is the mainspring of evolution" , as dr Charlotte Bach argued in the 1960's. Her answer to Darwinist mantras that evolution is the mainspring of sexual deviation.

Thanks Rob, for a very helpful comment that brings out the value of empirical thought. I would like to lean on another commenter, MK, as well, who highlighted how sex need not just produce offspring to be beneficial. This article presents a range of reasons for same-sex behaviors in a wide range of species, with Ms. Monk’s team suggesting these behaviors may not have evolved from a heterosexual norm. Dr. Vasey suggested that occasional same-sex activity may not be difficult to sustain for a population that otherwise produces enough offspring via heterosexual activity. The team noted that they tried to avoid making their research a cultural statement, so I hesitate to do so, but, as Frank articulated well, sex can have other benefits. In other words, we don’t need to see same-sex behavior as inherently wasteful, maladaptive, or aberrant, as Greg did, we can choose to, but there are good reasons not to. Particularly in a world where a species’ population is pushing out others and frequently invokes concerns about the planet’s carrying capacity, we’re not short on children. Sometimes we’re short on willing parents. We seem to be short on happy adults. There’s plenty of sex occurring, plenty of it procreative. Same-sex behavior seems to be hardly slowing us down. If the destination is overpopulation and climate change, slowing down is good. Probably less sex should be procreative. Contraception, same-sex sex, and masturbation are empirically and ecologically beneficial.

This makes perfect sense. Same-sex activity makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint because sexual activity itself has obvious survival value. If organisms have a drive for same-sex activity and opposite-sex activity, the organisms will reproduce. There is no downside, no evolutionary cost, to having an organism that has both same-sex and opposite-sex impulses. A sexual inclination that is broader than needed to reproduce is more advantageous than one that is too narrow.

This article brings to mind a book I read decades ago called, The Invention of Heterosexuality, by Katz.

Implicit in these attempts to explain homosexual behavior through science is the the old canard of whether homosexuality is a choice. I am a gay man who is as in love with my partner after 26 years as I’ve ever been. I do not need science to legitimate that love any more than I need religious folk to look after my soul. My only requirement is for society to protect my rights, just as it does any other citizen’s. I am a grown man who is living the life I choose. I need nothing from science, religion or society beyond respecting my adult choice in the same way that I respect others’. Everything else is needless commentary.

If you compare how many times sexual activity occurs to how many times this activity results in offspring, it’s only a tiny fraction of sexual activity that results in offspring. Offspring can result from sexual activity, but it so seldom does, that it really doesn’t matter who/what is having sex with whom/what. Observing my chickens and ducks having sex, the last thing in the mind of a rooster or drake and a hen is producing offspring. A rooster can mate tens of times in a day, and very seldom do those matings ever result in offspring, even though my hens are free to go broody and hatch a clutch. A hen may go broody once or twice a year, but she is having sex all year long, many times a day. This notion that sex that doesn’t lead to offspring has no evolutionary purpose is not supported by any fact.

The author is not proposing that same sex bonding serves an evolutionary advantage. Trying to affirm or oppose that position is irrelevant to this article. She seems to be proposing that bonding existed before sexual divergence into male and female even appeared in organisms. Her point makes sense. Single celled, and non sexually reproducing organisms often still bond in communities that provide safety and survival benefits. Human species survival still depends as much in non reproductive bonds, lives and loyalties for survival as much as it depends on reproduction. Imagine someone raising a child truly alone without other humans to help. None of us survive alone.

"Ms. Monk and her colleagues say that explicitly flipping the cultural assumptions — in this case by conducting the study with researchers who self-identify as queer, and bringing in outside disciplines like social science — can yield better research." Or equally biased, but in the opposite direction.

Nature’s way of population control perhaps ?

I believe that people have made too much out of sexual orientation. A biological species only needs to be sexual to continue. For example, I'm a gay man and may ejaculate 10,000 times in a lifetime. If just two of those times are opposite-sex coupling that produce children, then the species continues. It does not matter how I've had sex the other 9,998 times. There does not need to be a heterosexual prerogative. I wish biologist who are interested in sex just count the ejaculations and not worry where-- where it is heterosexual, homosexual, or against a tree, lump of grass, someone's leg, or self-stimulation.

Get over all of this. To wit: White Man witnesses animals showing tenderness toward each other. Feeling angered and confused, lacking empathy, refusing to accord sentience and agency to anything but himself, he spits out: They're not doing that! Besides, *animals don't have any feelings*.

And the reason we care about this is??? And the reason for spending this money is???

In another NYT article the president of Zambia, condemning homosexuality, is quoted as saying "Not even animals do it" . Apparently he should read his New York Times and educate himself.

I am glad to see broader exploration of this topic. I have often thought, given that same sex behavior remains evident across so many dimensions of life, we should explore the possibility that it might be heavily advantageous for species. (I wonder, for example, if humans have disproportionately prospered as a species due to persistent and widespread patterns of same sex behavior. In other words, it's pervasiveness might be advantageous, along with other human differentiators such as extensive tool use. For example, perhaps it might keep human males and females relatively close in size and capabilities, somewhat ameliorating the hypersexualization of human cultural behaviors. Keeping the sexes closely aligned in terms of capabilities might create greater resilience in emergencies. Well, all speculation, but still glad to see broader scientific hypotheses on this.)

Julia Monk's skepticism regarding the traditional need to justify same-sex behavior is most astute. This mode of non-reproductive mating may very well be a method of species preservation by instinctively preventing overpopulation.

Putting aside reproduction, we know that sex triggers many positive chemicals, some of which reduce inflammation and pain, some chemicals enhance connection and bonding, and likely lots more. Perhaps non-reproductive sex is a way beings experience pleasure and bonding that is necessary to that species’ wellness?

Briefly. There are a number of forms of logical processes employed by humans and these have long been studied; in fact for millennia. The comment by “Greg” in Brooklyn uses a form of ampliative inference called “argument by analogy”. Asher Elbein describes Ms Monk and her co-authors as examining currently available empirical evidence leading them to explicitly questioning the validity – for one example - of the application of economic theory concepts to animal sexual behaviours. In contrast, analogy to economics is the mode in which Greg argues. Thus, Monk advances an empirical approach to observing the real world of sexual reproduction as Nature (or God if you like) created on Mother Earth. This approach utilizes a broader range of the currently available and empirically known facts and avoids the long and well understood shortcomings of inference by analogy. Finally. A tongue in cheek counter argument to Greg’s argument by analogy might take the form of observing that money wasn’t even around when folks started having same sex relations. And a sad comment on us humans is that perhaps for some the analogy works the other way round.

This points to the fact that everything we think is filtered through the lens of our experience and bias. I love it when the initial assumptions we make are turned on their head. Think of how people felt when it was determined that the sun, not the earth, actually was the center of the solar system. Our misguided scientific beliefs are upended on a daily basis. Our arrogance can keep us in the dark to truth. Sometimes our unsupported beliefs are so deeply ingrained that when faced with the truth, we still don't believe it. Take the case of the probe sent to the comet. Everyone knew that comets were dirty snowballs in space before we visited one and found out that no, they are not, but the myth continues.

Yes! This is why it's important to have diversity in all disciplines. Looking at issues through different lenses can spark creative solutions and original theories. Well done, Ms. Monk and team.

"Mating attempts between different sexes don’t always efficiently lead to offspring either, Dr. Kamath said — mating attempts can be rebuffed, conception may not occur and clutches or young may not survive. These are normal hiccups in population-level reproduction, and the team predicts that the costs of same-sex behavior aren’t likely to be any greater." That logic doesn't hold. It's akin to saying investments often lose money, so burning money on your stovetop makes more sense in that context.