Gay animals

[emmagrant01]

batagur recently made a post about homosexuality arising in nature among non-human animals, and it reminded me of the story of the gay penguins, Wendall and Cass.  If you've never heard of it, go read it.  It's so cute!  They even raised a chick together.

A quote: Rumors that they keep the neatest nest at the aquarium because they're gay are not true. "These are penguins," said Mitchell. "They poop in their nest. Nobody's got a clean nest."

Homosexuality in bonobos, macaques, and more.

Gay sheep.  helens78, this one's for you!  ;-)

This site claims to have photos of animals having gay sex.

Does anyone still think people choose to be gay?

Comments

[green-key.livejournal.com]

The first time I read the Wendell and Cass article I got all sniffly. I have to dig up my W&C icon.

My friends used to have a laugh, but my dog Teddy would only hump other male dogs. He'd sniff at females, but he'd befriend and chase other males.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I so love the idea of gay penguins. It just fits somehow.

[helens78]

Heeeeeeeeee! I remember an article I read once about lesbian ewes. Basically, the way a ewe attracts a mate is to stand there and wait for the sheep they're interested in to notice. (Seriously. At least according to this article.) So there might be millions of lesbian and bisexual ewes out there... but since they're all standing there waiting to be noticed, no one would ever know.

Actually, it kinda sounds like geek dating rituals, now that I think of it.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Basically, the way a ewe attracts a mate is to stand there and wait for the sheep they're interested in to notice.

It's a wonder sheep reproduce at all! I wonder if that behavior is unique to the domesticated varieties?

[helens78]

It's hard to say, since so much of the world's sheep population is domestic! The sheep's "natural" defense against predators nowadays is... wait for it... wait for it... the shepherd. *pets sheep*

[libel.livejournal.com]

Do people choose to be gay?

Interesting question. I must say that there are those out there that seem to think it trendy or whatnot to be gay. So yeah, I guess it is a possibility.

For me there was never a concious choice or decision. I can remember watching the movie Flash Gordon when I was 10 and being oddly drawn to those cute little shorts.More than that I was deeply awed by the bulge. I didn't know what it was at the time I just remember being fascinated by it.

I can look at any number of women and acknowledge that fact that they are beautiful, they just don't get any primal urges from me. Andelina Jolie withstanding.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Right -- you never made a choice about it. From what you've written above, it sounds like you always were gay and simply became aware of it, albeit slowly.

I'm straight, for all intents and purposes. I've been attracted to women and have kissed a few, but that's it. I can imagine myself having sex with a woman, but what I have a hard time imagining is that I'd fall in love with one. I don't know if that makes any sense at all, but I've talked to lots of people who feel the same way.

The weird thing is, I would really like to be bisexual! It goes beyond being "trendy"; I am very interested in gay rights and would like to be able to be a part of the gay community. (That's part of the reason I'm a slash writer -- it's the closest I can come to it, in some sense.) Instead, I'm an outsider who staunchly supports and campaigns for equal rights for GLBT people. (It's sort of like the many white people in the 60's who were committed to Civil Rights activism and tried to immerse themselves in the African American community.) So if someone could choose it, I would have. But I can't. It just doesn't work that way.

BTW, if you read "Left My Heart", that's exactly what Manny was talking about near the end when he told Harry he was straight. That was pretty much me talking there! :-P

[brightsun301.livejournal.com]

That is so adorable! reminds me of the episode of pet psychic I was forced to watch. "Why won't my 'fancy-bird-name' take a mate?" "Cause he's not interested in the ones you're offering him. He's gay hun, yes he is." *blink*

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Wow, really?

[brightsun301.livejournal.com]

Yups, it was like a macaw or something. ^_^ I don't remember, it was years ago... 2 at least.

[amberleewriter.livejournal.com]

And let us not forget animals like cod and frogs that change gender several times during their lifespan.

Geesh people! Get a grip! It's nature not nurture.

[dracavia]

I wish someone would convince my cultural anthropology professor of that. The again that's what I get for going to a University with religious connections, you end up with some hard-core religious professors. I mean generally the man was great, he really knew his stuff, but he seemed to be blind on the issue of sexuality. All the examples and reasons he gave for why homosexuality was nuture based, and not right, heh, I sat through them thinking "Yeah, but the way you said it the same could be said of heterosexuality..." He never seemed to notice how his examples could easily be turned around on him...

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Cultural anthropologists who were educated in the 60's and 70's are notorious for claiming nurture wins the battle over nature hands-down. What does he think about evolution?

[dracavia]

I'm honestly not certain. I had the class last term and I don't remember if evolution ever came up in class or not. His parents were missionaries though, and he seems rather firm in his Christianity, so it wouldn't surprise me if he beleived in creationism, but I can't say for certain. It seems like a lot of professors avoid bringing up evolution at this school, I suspect it's because there are such polar opposite views on it. Like I mentioned, it's a religiously affiliated school, big theology department and all (which even in that I've noticed a wide range from conservative to libral), but there's also a big science department. I've heard some rathre heated debates start up sometimes between some of the theology profs and the science profs.

[jane-sehrn-ta.livejournal.com]

It's my wish that we could abandon categorizing people by their gender and "sexual-orientation" altogether. Technically, I am a lesbian. I am legally married (praise Canada) to a woman. But who I am, and how I feel about her, has almost nothing to to do with gender and sex, and *everything* to do with the soul I fell in love with, and fall deeper in love with each day.

The other day, my counsellor asked me when I realized I was a lesbian. I hesitated, because really, I didn't understand the question. I've never categorized myself. All my life I have variously felt female, male, multigendered, no-gendered (forgive me for making up words but I don't want to go searching for the right "labels"). Thanks to early abuse, I have frequently felt asexual and sexless. I have drives and desires that are so complex I cannot categorize them. Nor do I wish to. I just want to "be".

At the moment there is a hate-war being conducted by one of Canada's national newspapers, the National Post, over the free vote being put to our Parliament about legalizing "same-sex marriage" federally. They're ranting over how the majority want "traditional marriage" (as a result of their own private poll), and I've even read opinion pieces in there that go on about such things as - "let's not worry about the marriage issue - what about the adoption issue - these *things* are molesting children". *shudders*

I just want to be a *person*, complex and imperfect. Maybe that makes me strange. But even working out what label I am supposed to "be" at any time, feels depersonalizing, dehumanizing.

As soon as we, as a society, stop categorizing people by gender and sexual-orientation, the sooner we can stop this constant acrimony and get on with arguing about other pointless things like religion and politics.

Just my very humble opinion.

[paperhana.livejournal.com]

I agree with you. Love is much to complex to be categorized.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right about the categorization thing. It's human nature to want to categorize things. It's something that seems to be fundamental to the way the human brain processes information about the world. In fact, it's why we have the ability to recognize patterns at all, and so can have language, do mathematics, and so on. But that also means we categorize people too, even when it doesn't necessarily make sense to do so.

It's interesting that there was no such concept as "sexual orientation" until fairly recently in human history. Of course, before that, sexual attraction o members of the smae sex was just considered a "perversion". So maybe labelling, for the time being, is better than the way it used to be? We'll get there, eventually. I truly believe that. :-)

[jane-sehrn-ta.livejournal.com]

But that also means we categorize people too, even when it doesn't necessarily make sense to do so.

I know. I was thinking further about it, and perhaps what I propose is an awful utopia, but the segregation still chafes. So many things my wife and I do, we must do under the category of "same-sex" provisions, whether it be taxation, marriage, immigration, etc. Don't get me wrong. I love the incredible freedoms we have compared to some countries where our love could not exist at all. But god, it would be wonderful to just be in the same class as everyone else and not have our relationship reduced to a matter of our gender.

So maybe labelling, for the time being, is better than the way it used to be?

God, yes. I thank my higher power daily that I was born in this age and not in the past when almost everything about me would have been considered a perversion. I am fortunate to have a few good friends who love me entirely for the flawed but loving being I am!

We'll get there, eventually. I truly believe that. :-)

I hope so! Thanks for your entry on this subject -- I love the discussions you spark with your journal. In fact, this discussion has helped me hone my own ideas on how I want to use my own limited resources to help change attitudes and further a society where truly "we are one". Thank you for the inspiration!

[sorion.livejournal.com]

Yay for nature ^_____^

[paperhana.livejournal.com]

My male puppy (see icon) has humped my other male puppy on occasion. However, I believe this to be a more 'dominating' thing, then 'gay sex'. The alpha male in the animal kingdom has his first choice in mates. All other males are second. I believe that humping is an act of power, or dominance, over the other male or female. Sex is used as a form of power.

Humans, on the other hand, have an emotional connection to sex. Our primal instincts aside, sex isn't about dominance (however, rape is. But that's not putting our primal instincts aside, now is it?) Because of the emotional connection, we tend to feel love towards our partners. Animals do not feel this kind of love. I do not believe they have the mental understanding to love like we do. Therefore, I believe that having 'gay sex' does not make one gay. Being in love, a passionate love, with the same sex would make someone gay. (Now I'm starting to confuse myself, hopefully someone is following me..) Basically, since animals do not have the mental understanding to have an emotional connection with another, animals can not be gay or straight. They have other reasons for doing what they do.

This is just my personal view/theory.

[meninaiscrazy.livejournal.com]

Your pup sounds like ours. Only difference is our's keeps on going after my cat Cleo. Cleo's old so she can't run for it. LOL

[capra-maritimus.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately many biologists and such will only conclude that it's 'dominant behaviour'. Or a 'greeting'(!) or some such without ever admitting that maybe there might actually be something sexual there at all. *snerk*

I do agree with what you say about the 'gay' animal thing, though I might make an exception for Bonobos apes.

Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl is a great book on the topic of homosexual behaviour in animals (and the crazy lengths many biologists et al. go to hiding the fact).

[sorion.livejournal.com]

Basically, since animals do not have the mental understanding to have an emotional connection with another, animals can not be gay or straight.

Not sure, I agree... Humans can have sex without the emotional connection. But even for a one-night-stand we tend to choose the gender that appeals to us more (unless we're bisexual).
If an animal generally prefers its own gender to the opposite its whole life long, nests with its partner even, it cleary is gay. No matter the emotions.

Homosexuality addresses the sexuality, not the emotional attachment.

[eristeleute.livejournal.com]

I apologize if I've misinterpreted the discussion, but it seems that this part of the debate is really over the difference between homosexual acts and an identity or self-concept as homosexual (or bisexual, or whatever else applies).

Humans can bring a certain mental component to sexuality and sexual identification that animals cannot. (I love animals, but they lack the necessary ganglia. Sorry.) They can, however, act in an exclusively or primarily homosexual way.

Does that make sense? That seems to be the topic of disagreement (as I read it).

[sorion.livejournal.com]

Ah... Now I agree ^-^

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

I disagree with some of what you seem to be saying here.

Because of the emotional connection, we tend to feel love towards our partners. Animals do not feel this kind of love. I do not believe they have the mental understanding to love like we do. Therefore, I believe that having 'gay sex' does not make one gay. Being in love, a passionate love, with the same sex would make someone gay.

You seem to be saying that there is no homosexuality outside the context of a relationship. But the biological argument is that people are born gay. So a person is gay her entire life, not just when she falls in love with another person. She's no less gay when at the age of 7 she realizes she's more fascinated by the female form than the male than she is when she first kisses another gorl when she's 14. My point is that homosexuality is innate and independent of the context of particular sexual activity or relationships.

Basically, since animals do not have the mental understanding to have an emotional connection with another, animals can not be gay or straight. They have other reasons for doing what they do.

It's hard for me to believe that animals do not feel something akin to love. As I type this, my cat is stretched out in my lap. She is incredibly clingy. She cries when I leave the house. She sits in my lap constantly, purring contentedly. She sleeps curled up next to me. She feels something for me. I wouldn't necessarily call it "love" (since that is an abstract human concept and to apply it to her would be a bit too anthropomorphic), but she and I have a very strong bond.

Better example: Many animals in nature mate for life. Canadian geese, for example, and the penguins in the above-mentioned article. My mom told me about seeing a dead goose on the side of the road once -- it had been hit by a car. Its mate was pacing back and forth by its corpse, frantic. My mom drove by again the next day, and the surviving goose was still there, settled a few yards away, forlorning staring at the demcomposing corpse of its mate. My mom broke down crying when she told that story, because it was so horribly sad, from her perspective. There are emotional bonds that hold such animals together. The penguins mentioned above were partners for nearly a decade. There is something going on that keeps them together, and I would call it an emotional connection.

I agree that homosexuality is not about sex. This is the thing that most people who are homophobic seem to misunderstand. If it's about sex, or if it only arises as a result of exposure to a certain person, then it seems more like a choice. But if it's innate, it exists independently of the people around you and the choices you make.

[paperhana.livejournal.com]

Animals definitely have a bond between their pack. I guess in ways it could be called love. An animal's love is pure, and not such a complex emotion as the human definition of love. o.O I think I was trying to say something of the sorts. lol. (The story about the goose reminds me of the book "Where the Red Fern Grows." God, I read it years ago, but every time I retell the story, I still cry.)

[jane-sehrn-ta.livejournal.com]

It's hard for me to believe that animals do not feel something akin to love
Well said. I have always bonded strongly with my feathered/furred family members. I have absolutely no doubt that there is a bond between them, me, and other creatures that can be as strong as what we call "love". In the same way, the term "mate for life" can be unfortunate as it largely suggests a sexual connection, when really, it's a "bond for life" and goes beyond sex. There's a lot of humans who could learn a lot from the kind of love that animals can show.


I agree that homosexuality is not about sex.
Hallelujah, Emma. Please run for president of the U.S.!

[meninaiscrazy.livejournal.com]

Well, the fact that it exists in the animal kingdom suggests it's not a choice.

Personally I don't see how many can 'choose' it. When you think about all the prejudices out there about it. Although male homosexuality is considered 'worse' than lesbianism. Just based on people I talk to who freak out over it but, when asked about lesbianism seem to have less of a problem with it.

I am one of those believers of the 10/80/10 theory.
10% hetero
80% 'bi-' in some way or another
10% homosexual

The more I talk to people the more I believe it. ^___~

[shezan.livejournal.com]

I'm so happy you gave the URL for the penguins' story! I'd read it at the time & could't find it again. They're so CUTE!

:)

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Yes, they are!

[blucola.livejournal.com]

There's a recent book called Evolution's Rainbow the addresses the issue of homosexuality in nature. Haven't read the whole thing yet, but it really got my attention in the chapter about sheep.

[themadfish.livejournal.com]

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/03/08/gay_penguins/

Seems to be a fuller article about Wendall and Cass.

And a news clip of them. They're so cute.
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=gay+penguins/v=2/SID=e/l=WS1/R=9/IPC=us/SHE=0/H=2/SIG=12o1jbicq/EXP=1107644392/*-http%3A//www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/19/jm.gay.penguins.cmdy.med.html

[greyandgrey.livejournal.com]

Hi there! I just finnished reading "left my heart", which I found recommended on a friend's LJ, and was wondering where I might find the sequel!

[celticballet.livejournal.com]

The "Left My Heart" sequel has not yet been posted.
We're all waiting for it though.

[greyandgrey.livejournal.com]

ah. no wonder I couldn't find it! *g*