Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals/Archive 1

widespread
Replacing it with "widespread" only partially deals with the problem. It is still too vague. Also, to precede it with a statement about the "parallel" without a caveat statement from another study, does not seem fair. I did not delete the parallel statement, I only let people know there are competing conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.204.7 (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph was a mismatch of scientific, moral and philosophical statements. I have tried to clean it up by splitting it into several chapters. As it was, it was not very informative, nor did it function as a general introduction to the subject.Petter Bøckman 06:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is the LGBT or whoever is undoing my edits against my additions? To state that homosexual conduct is "rampant" among animals is too broad, vague and ambitious of a statement--one that is clearly fueled by a political agenda and not one of scientific fact. Therefore, if you want to keep that, it only makes sense, in all fairness, to put on competing studies which argue it is not "rampant." And even if it is, the implication that human "bisexuality, etc..." can be "paralleled" by it, is nonsensical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.204.7 (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A quesion which was not answered in this website. Which kind of sexual activities the homosecxual animals engage in? For example, do male homosexual sheep engage in anal sex? I propose more documented and detailed facts for the claims rather than just tagging some behavior "homosexual". Another example: In many human societies, non-homosexual males hang around with each other and do more or less what the so called "homosexual" dolphins in this article are said to be doing (that is sexually teasing other males, not homosexual behavior).


 * Yes, anal sex is common, but only among males and only in animals with a penis (i.e. mammals). The wast majority of animals do not have a penis.Petter Bøckman 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

intro
Fix, change it, do what you want. But an article, per the Manual of Style, must have an introduction. There's no two ways about it. You simply cannot remove an intro entirely, whatever the problems. As to the style/content objections: I reverted not because I disagree with the spirit of improving the content (it's a crap intro), but because it removed essential elements rather than improving them. Example: you must have a basic definition and statement of notability as the first sentence. Jumping right into facts without context or a proper lead is a violation of basic article writing principles. Change whatever you want, but removing basic structural necessities is not an improvement. Van Tucky  (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lede should also include a statement about that the subject is seen as controversial because it is used as proof that homosexuality et al is natural while others point to the same research as proof that sexuality and gender are influenced by environmental factors and/or an aberation. Benjiboi 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've updated the lede and moved the controversy (political implications) statement to address the balance concern. Benjiboi 02:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouch, sorry for not checking the style manual before revising, my bad! The new introduction is better than the old one, but I feel that the topics that was in the sections I wrote should be covered (use of the term "homosexual" in particular). Would it be an idea to make a more "neutral" introduction (stating a few facts now covered by the introduction), and moving the controversy part to it's own chapter? I believe the controversy is important enough to warrant a proper treatment, not just be mentioned in passim in the intro.Petter Bøckman 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that this article has been and is likely to remain a magnet for strong POVs I suggest leaving the lede intact and starting a Criticism of research section or whatever seems appropriate. In my experience, articles that deal with GLBT issues attract a fair amount of anon editors but if they see that criticisms are addressed clearly and upfront the editing becomes more focused on the article than assuring a POV is preserved. Benjiboi 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have left the introduction as it was, and put in a chapter on the problematic use of the term homosexuality, mostly put together from my old sections.Petter Bøckman 09:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Which unfortunately was full of POV. The worst has now been removed, but somebody else needs to look at it and clean it up a lot more. Pairadox 09:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, I fail to see where the entry was full of POV. I see you have edited away the section saying that homosexuality is a matter of sexual preference. It is not that I insist that it should be mentioned, I'm just surprised that this constitute a POV. This use of the word follows from the definition (the original Preussian one), at least from where I'm from, this is totally uncontroversial. If this is not Wikipedia policy on GLBT matters, please let me know. The section was an attempt at giving a quick intro to the problem of terminology, which I in all fairness think the readers should know about.Petter Bøckman 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In-line references
This article needs citations and sources. The article is plenty long and is likely to be seen as controversial so editors should start adding references where conflict is likely to arise. I'm tagging the article for sources so that editors who don't read talk pages will see the alert as well. Benjiboi 00:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've formatted all the references that were there and added reflist so they appear. Benjiboi 02:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your tremendous effort on this article. Haiduc 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. The more references added to back-up assertions occurs the more I believe the article will come into a balance. i think some quotes from researches on both sides of the debate as well as neutral scientists will also help. I'm sure Scientific American and National Geographic have material on these subjects as well. Benjiboi 04:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Spotted hyena
Female hyenas have a pseudo-penis, but it is not an actual penis. It only appears to be one. This lead to the misconception that hyenas were hermaphrodites. They aren't. And they do not display homosexual behavior. Placing them in this article because of that misconception will only increase people's belief in the misconception and hurt this article, because if there's one section that is false why should readers believe any of the other sections? -Freak104 12:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They actually do exhibit homosexual behavior (mounting) as well as males mounting each other - probably as a result of higher testosterone levels, but both male and female hyenas exhibit this behavior so I'm re-adding the section with references. Benjiboi 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * They only exhibit play mounting, which is not an example of homosexual behavior. It is a form of play. And most of the time the young males play mount a female. -Freak104 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen nothing that the mounting researchers documented was considered play and, in fact, believe that they would have quickly (and more readily) categorized the mountings as such. Please stop deleting the entire section and instead find a reference that supports that all the mounting exhibited by hyenas is exclusively "play mounting" and that "play mounting" cannot be considered homosexual activity. Benjiboi 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously you have never taken an actual class in animal behavior. The mounting behavior you have listed is juveniles only, and it is play. If we defined play mounting as homosexual behavior then all mammals would have to be listed in this article. And do not add the section back in until other editors have voiced their opinion. Otherwise this will devolve into an edit war, and we don't want that. Let's settle this dispute with other people's opinions, the way Wikipedia says we're supposed to. -Freak104 16:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will refrain from listing my credentials as an authority on sexual behavior in animals and instead focus on the verifiable information for this article. I also appreciate your apparent interest in following protocols although it should be noted that you simply deleted the entire section here and herebecause the section only covered the hermaphrodite "ignorance" stating there is no homosexuality in their behavior. Then after I added references supporting homosexual behavior you again deleted the entire section hereand here instead of voicing your concerns. Now any editors will have to dig through history to even access what was written and referenced. I now have to hold off re-adding the section you've efficiently removed four times so that I too don't violate the three-revert rule. I again assert, as does the article, that traditionally researchers have avoided labeling the same behavior by different sexes for various reasons and that researchers didn't categorize the mountings as "play mountings" but simply mountings. I have every belief that they would have been more likely to err by calling something a play mounting (especially if it was juveniles) rather than  labeling the mountings as they did. I am, however, quite open to amending the freshly deleted text if some reference can be found that asserts those mountings can only be considered play and play cannot mean homosexual. If that information can be referenced then we should add it as a counter to the other research as a disagreement in research or research results. Since it seems like you're open to what other editors (besides me) have to say, let's see what transpires. Benjiboi 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The section in controversy seems well sourced.  If there is contradictory literature, that can be included too.  Fireplace 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from an actual Spotted hyena researcher (who specifically studied play behavior in one of her studies): "Yeah, I wouldn't say that hyena mounting behavior is an example of homosexual behavior. When they are cubs they mount both males and females but so do most young animals so I wouldn't call that homosexual behavior. Definitely as adults you do NOT see them mounting individuals of the same sex. Probably the species that is the best example of homosexual behavior is the bonobo where there is a lot of same sex genital stimulation." Not only is it verifiable, but it's the truth. Freak104 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that does conflict with the the other researcher's statements so possibly including both makes sense. Where is that referenced by the way? Benjiboi 02:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't conflict with other researchers statements. It conflicts with WP:Original Research posted on this page. Freak104 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I intend to re-add the deleted section whether any conflicting or balancing sources are provided or not. As the other editor cited verifiability, not truth. If there are sources to back up the assertion then please provide. Benjiboi 16:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "When they are cubs they mount both males and females" Therefore, not a homosexual behavior. Freak104 23:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting, please provide a WP:RS for that assertion. Benjiboi 23:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is: the test for inclusion is verifiability in reliable, published sources, not truth. As multiple sources treat this topic in the context of animal homosexuality, it meets the test. Van Tucky  Talk 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My source for my quote is actually one of the sources cited in the section about hyenas. But as it is a personal e-mail communication from her and not an actual publication I can't provide a published source to back things up. (And I won't publish her name here as I don't want to ruin her credibility by involving her with a dispute on something as petty as Wikipedia.) I guess I will have to leave this article as is, with false information. I won't change this article to be truthful, and that is why no one respects Wikipedia as a reliable source. Freak104 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the complaints department, stick to comments about the article. Van Tucky  Talk 04:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross species sex
Does this paragraph belong in this article? While there are some interesting homosexual activity across species (Baboons/chimpanzees and Amazone River Dolphin/Tucuxi), the general paragraph deals with cross species sex, not homosexuality.Petter Bøckman 19:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, it has little to do with the article's subject matter. I say either remove it or move it to a proper animal sexuality article. Van Tucky  (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it does help understand the subject but should be moved to the bottom with a sentence referencing it added to the intro or first section. Benjiboi 02:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to the end. The section should really be in its own article, as it is only slightly relevant here.Classicalclarinet (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually where it was, was the bottom of the theorizing or essay aspect of the article and the remainder of the article Selected species are provided as examples so its placement was fine. Benjiboi 01:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"theorizing or essay aspect of the article"??? Is that part of common Wikipedia Article Structure that I don't know about? IMO, it doesn't seem related 66.32.228.204 (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the article has two main parts; the lede and information (what I termed above "theorizing or essay aspect") and the second part a list of selected examples. I'm sure there are more technical or wiki-correct terms but the end result is the same - the list of examples is purposely shortenend and is appropriately the last aspect of the basic article. Benjiboi 13:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Japanese macaque
The Japanese macaque is another animal that displays homosexual behavior. If I remember what I read about them it is primarily female-female behavior, and the males don't exhibit in homosexual behavior. I don't remember where to find this, but if someone could that would be an excellent addition to this page. -Freak104 12:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * done. Benjiboi 00:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

anthrosexual
I've removed this addition - "In theory, all animals are anthrosexual, because they do not comprehend or claim a sexual orientation like humans have, and homosexual behavior in animals should be seen more as an act being committed and not an active sexual orientation like it referred to in humans." As the related anthrosexual article is being AfD I suggest we let the editor deal with that and maybe a source will be provided to save both that article and the above statement. If not, perhaps integrating it into the article with whatever can be sourced would make sense. We already do cover this to an extent. Banje boi 23:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let remove anthrosexual from this statement, " animals.... do not comprehend or claim a sexual orientation like humans have, and homosexual behavior in animals should be seen more as an act being committed and not an active sexual orientation like it referred to in humans." Do you agree? I hope so because you are an active editor to this article. So my question is, what seems to be the issue with this statement??? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to me that issue was already addressed and sourced, that the subject is seen as controversial and here is the context in which the term is used. I'm not sure we have a source that animals do not comprehend sexuality or if there is research that addresses that. So I guess it would be good to suss out if this is stating something different than we already have, in addition to what we have or a combination of content already covered and new ground. If we are adding new ideas we should definitely be clear and we should probably let a reliable source make the point rather than us editors. Banje boi  02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably also problematic to call all animals "anthrosexual" if its literal meaning is "human sexual". The issue is what sources give credence to the idea that a) the correct name of this phenomena is "anthrosexual" and b) the phenomena is really what you think it is. Sources are needed to back this up...--130.63.41.86 (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are putting too much thought on the literal meaning. Just how bisexual literally means "two sexual", it doesn't mean your atracted to the number two (2). --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - but there doesn't seem to any sourced information to clarify the non-literal meanings of "anthrosexual"...so all I have to go on so far is that it's literal meaning is anthrocentric. Of course, even one can prove through sources that applying "anthrosexual" to animals isn't anthrocentric, one would still need to prove that a) the phenomena really is best characterized as anthrosexual and b) there's good reason to use the word "anthrosexual" instead of any other word, like I said before. Without sources it isn't sufficiently justified quite yet... --99.231.118.172 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So what is "anthrosexual" now? I studied human sexuality, LGBT and gender studies in college and I've never once heard of it. Either way limiting the wording to talking about animals "committing" (a word that reminds of criminal behavior) homosexual "acts" (another word commonly used by the anti-gay movement to trivialize gay relationships as being nothing more than sexual activity) is both potentially offensive, and most likely inaccurate. There isn't just homosexual sex in animals, there is also bonding, sometimes long term, and sometimes raising offspring together. Since presently we can't ask any animals if how they "identify" or not, I would suggest not attempting to make a judgment either way.VatoFirme (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"“Anthrosexuality is the most destructive word to the mid 19th and 20th century view of sexuality. It releases people from the typical agenda of homosexually and heterosexually that bisexuality attempted to achieve but did not succeed because it simply created another classification. Anthrosexuality created an agenda that has no agenda. It opens the doors by not separating people into bins of social groups. It took down the walls that divided us and makes the bisexual tunnel between heterosexuality and homosexuality an obsolete tool. It achieves what I have always desired for people, it frees them mentally, socially, and sexually.""
 * Anthrosexual basically meand undefined sexuality, it could be used by some who feels that defining a sexuality is unnecessary.

- cooljuno411

--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean absolutely no offense by this, but you can't cite your own personal thoughts as a valid source on Wikipedia unless they've been published elsewhere. While I do think that the definition of the term that you gave was very well worded, it still doesn't help us establish the meaning of the word for use in an encyclopedia article. —Mears man (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a QUOTE, hence the "quotes" and i think i can quote myself. I was just telling my opinion on it.... --Cooljuno411 (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While the term anthrosexual may not be a bad tool to describe some of the homosexual behaviour in some species, there are three factors that make it unsuited:
 * The word it self really mean "sexually attracted to humans", which is not what we are looking for here
 * It is uniquely bound to the human condition, more so than "homosexual".
 * It's a virtually unknown term. While "homosexual" is hardly ideal, it is at least commonly understood and the term used in publications.
 * However, there are quite a few instances where we see sexual behaviour being directed with intent at same-sex animals. This is quite common in social species, which make up the majority of the examples in the text. For these, "anthrosexual" is not the right phrase.Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

penetrative sex
can some please form a list or some sort of way that clasiffys the animals that perform penetrative sex, such as anal sex. Some of these animals perform rubbing and i think an article or sub portion of the animals that perform penetration is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs)
 * There is some species for which documented penetrative sex exists but I'm unclear how best to present it, I'm not sure I would support a list but as there are only so many that are documented I could see adding a paragraph so the information is presented. Would that help or am I missing something? Banji boi 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I doesn't bother me how it is presented, as long as their is some sort of catagory, sub heading, article, or something that tells about the animals that have been record preforming penetration. The resson why i would like this is because the list is so extensive and it includes all forms of same-sex behaviors, a list or something on this specific topic is need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, first-off please remember to sign your comments. OK, I have some refs I can add and I'll look over the text to see what makes the most sense. It will probably take a few days but if I forget please feel free to prod me here or on my talk page. Banji boi 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We could start by taking the list and prune it of all animals without a penis (the majority of the animal kingdom), and exclude all homosexuality performed by females. Penetrative sex (particularly anal sex) is really a mammalian phenomenon. However, what use would such a list be? How should we classify male-male blow-jobs? What is the qualitative difference between a homosexual act sex performed by a male with a penis and one performed by a female without?Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we have males who perform penetrative sex on each other as well as females who penetrate with fingers and the erect clitoris. There seems plenty to work with but I'm again wondering what use is it to the article? If someone wanted to an entire separate article could be devoted to the subject as there does seem to be sources to support it. I'm not convinced it's needed though. Could you offer more an explanation how this will help the average reader? Perhaps just a sentence or two - somewhere, might be appropriate. Banje boi  14:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cross-species sex
Stupid question: why is a 'cross-species sex'-section in this article? Firstly, cross-species sex has nothing to do with homosexuality, secondly the section is mostly giving heterosexual examples (e.g. horse+donkey=mule). Wouldn't this entire section rather belong in Animal sexual behavior? In fact that article already has a more detailed section about cross-species sex. Therefore I suggest to delete/merge it here. Splette :) How's my driving? 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm of mixed opinions on this presently. I do see that for the average reader this could be useful information If we have it detailed better elsewhere than a summary here would be appropriate as it relates to this article. Banje boi  21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All kinds of information might be interesting to the average reader. But thats besides the point. Homosexuality in animals simply has no relation to cross-species sex (please correct me if I am wrong). Therefore I also oppose a summary of it here. I am against deleting content in wikipedia articles just because they are misplaced; in the wrong article. But this is not the case here since Animal sexual behavior has the topic well covered. Even more Animal sexual behavior is linked to in the very first sentence of this article here. Splette :) How's my driving? 23:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The section starts off with "research regularly records that many animals are sexual opportunists" which would seem to be at the core of what this article is about, that is why do animals exhibit homosexual behaviors. The section certainly could be improved a bit, as is, however, it does suggest exactly why it's there so I would faovr keeping it and improving it if it's not clear enough. Banje boi  10:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Commonplace
"homosexual behaviour is commonplace in the animal kingdom"

There are estimated to be 1,015,000 species in the order animalia, with 1,500 displaying homosexual traits. This is equal to 0.001% of all species. Is this really commonplace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.M.M. Dowd (talk • contribs) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That does depend on what you'd call common. The problem with the vast majority of animal’s species is that we don't know much about their sexual life and preferences, homosexual or otherwise. Among the number of animals where that has been surveyed closely enough to observe homosexuality, it can be said to be a fairly common phenomenon. This is dealt with a bit further down in the text, but I think a rephrasing is on order.Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also please note your comparison to 1,500 is wonky as these are the first 1500 to be identified not the only 1500. I'm not sure if there is sourcing that speaks to the percentage of animals that fall into this category but that might be useful if found. Banje boi  21:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)