Originally posted by: homercles337
In reading over your comments, your perspecitve is VERY anthropomorphic.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
what do you mean by "homosexuality"?
The most objective definition, with the least amount of anthropomorpism.
A sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) a member of the species of the same sex, that results in pleasure.
These primates come to mind.
How do you know that the animal is experiencing "sexual attraction"? Or "pleasure" for that matter. That is an inference on your part. (One might even say it is anthropomorphism on your part). You can't easily quantify "attraction". The best you can do is assign a behavioural measure, like the amount of physical contact an animal might seek out with another animal, assuming that the behavioural measure somehow reflects your quality of "sexual attraction". A behavioural definition - i.e., sexual contact between same-sex animals (within the same species) - can be quantified. I would use a behavioural definition.
Originally posted by: homercles337
any kind of same-sex sexual interaction is by my definition a "homosexual behaviour".
the list contains animals "for which there is documented evidence of homosexual or transgender behavior of one or more of the following kinds: sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, or parenting."
Youre first definition here does not jibe with your second.
The first definition is my definition. The second definition is not my definition - it is the definition given by the author of the link.
Do you think it surprising that my definition may differ with someone else's definition? Lol.
Originally posted by: homercles337
Your second includes things that are not sexual. If i help my longtime friend with his kid for a weekend does that make me "homosexual?" If i hangout with my longterm buddy for a weekend and do some heart-to-heart bonding about life, chics, or whatever, does that make me "homosexual?" If a nonhuman animal is not able to accurately discriminate the gender of a mate, but exhibits "advancements/affection/courtship" does that mean that animal is homosexual?
Witihin biology, parenting behaviours are considered part of the broad spectrum of reproductive (or sexual) behaviours. I would include parenting within reproductive or sexual behaviours. Afterall, one of the primary purposes of sex (but not the only purpose) is reproduction and the raising of off-spring. You're thinking is too literal. A peacock displaying it's feathers is engaging in a sexual or reproductive behavior even though no physical contact is taking place with another bird. Your assumption that animals engaging in homosexual behavior are not able to discriminate between the gender of male and female animals is not accurate. We know that certain non-human animals will ONLY engage in sexual behaviours (sex, courtship, affection, pair-bonding, parenting) with same-sex animals of the same species. I.e., they can tell the difference, and choose a same-sex partner for the range of sexual or reproductive behaviours they engage in. I would refer to that as 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual behavior'.
Originally posted by: homercles337
in general the documented cases of same-sex sexual interactions in animal species can't be explained (in an intellectually satisfying way) using concepts like "poor discriminability" or "asexuality".
Yea, um, again, not true. If you place a normal male rat in a cage with a TFM rat (thats a testicaularly femenized rat) he will attempt to mate.
Interesting, if you place normal males in a prison with a few overlty homosexual or feminised men, many of those "normal" men will "mount" the homosexual or feminised males.
Originally posted by: homercles337
So, why would a rat try to mate with a male?
Why would a human, male prisoner try to mount (anally penetrate) another male prisoner? Could it have to do with, um, the lack of availability of females?? I'd describe that as a situational homosexuality (in humans). But it is homosexual behaviour, nevertheless. And it is certainly interesting behaviour, worth studying.
Originally posted by: homercles337
Does that make him a homosexual rat?
If the "normal" male fvcks the weaker, submissive, feminised, or gay male in prison, does that make him a homosexual? Well, perhaps not, because the studies suggest these so-called normal males who engage in homosexual behaviours in prison will revert to heterosexual behaviours when they are released. I.e., they are engaging in homosexual behaviours as a result of the environment they are in.
I'd also be interested to examine the role of sex in establishing status or dominance ranks in humans (and rats, for that matter). Sex may well serve other purposes than reproduction. Other roles might be to establish hierarchy in a group, and of course to obtain pleasure.
Originally posted by: homercles337
Or one that can not discriminate between a male and female?
Does the 'normal' male who anally penetrates a weaker, or submissive, or gay, male in prison not know how to tell the difference between a male and a female, I wonder?
I would seek to place the male rat in a cage with female rats, and so-called feminised male rats, and see if a pattern emerges: does the rat mount a given gender more frequently? If you place that rat in a cage with a normal (non-feminised) male and a female rat, my guess is that the rat will display a preference for the female rat. The male rats may also fight, I would guess, and who knows, perhaps one rat will display submissive behviours towards the other rat.
Originally posted by: homercles337
This is an extreme example too--its pretty easy to get a male rat indiscriminantly mount. There are numerous maniplations one can perform to get male rats to mount indiscriminate males. THis is VERY well documented and talked about in the field (my cohorts in grad school talked about his stuff all the time).
Who knows, rats may distinguish gender through aggressiveness or other behavioural characteristics (i.e., not visually) and the artificial manipulation of hormones may well be creating a situation in which the normal cues to gender are changed or absent. Interesting findings, but whatever. I look to the broad picture emerging, across many species. There are documented examples of individual sheep, penguins, swans, and animals from numerous other species who consistently engage in same-sex sexual behaviours, in preference to opposite-sex sexual behaviours. The very fact they display a preference indicates an ability to discriminate between the genders.
Originally posted by: homercles337
Its also pretty easy to get male dogs to mount LEGS too. Does that make them interested in humans as partners? Fact is, when you really start to LOOK at these homosexual behaviors they are mostly anthropomorphic. I mean, come on, a male whale that releases sperm near another male whale is considered homosexual by these anthropomorphic statndards. Im not saying it doesnt exist, im saying the extent is grossly exaggerated and best kept to reasonable, rational estimates.
Um, thanks for the straw man examples. Maybe you'd like to take a look at the actual data.
If the whale or dolphin uses it's beak or flippers to stimulate the genitals of the other animal, then certainly I'd describe that as homosexual behaviour. I'd also describe it as homosexual behaviour if e.g., two male dolphins form a life-long pair bond, involving sexual activity with each other, defending and protecting each other from sharks, etc. Whether or not the factors leading to this kind of homosexual behaviour in dolphins and other animals are the same factors producing a homosexual orientation in adult humans is the interesting question.
Originally posted by: homercles337
in general the documented cases of same-sex sexual interactions in animal species can't be explained (in an intellectually satisfying way) using concepts like "poor discriminability" or "asexuality".
BOLD claim that i will handily discredit if you wanted to provide links.
Sure. Give me a moment.
Originally posted by: homercles337
the notion that we can actually put a ratio figure to the nature/ nurture proportion is preposterous. There simply isn't enough evidence to get that specific. Also, if anything, the evidence suggests that different people may become homosexual for different reasons, i.e., there may be multiple routes to homosexuality (interacting biological and environmental factors).
More evidence you dont know what youre talking about. If the animal models are accurate, and in behavioral/neural experiments they definately tend to be well supported. Kinda like the way DNA evidence supports Evolution. I never said we are 100% sure, did you see my 'tilde' indicating "approximately? Or the fact, that im talking about how behaviour can influence biology and vice versa. Did you even bother to google or pubmed S Marc Breedlove?
Incorrect. There is not adequate evidence, at the moment, to give even a tentative estimate of the relative contribution of genetics and environment in determining adult human sexual orientation. There is no agreement on the relative importances of the two within psychology. The science is still up in the air. You gave a figure - a percentage figure - and that is preposterous. Utterly preposterous.
If the animal models are supported? Lol, and which animal models, exactly, are you referring to? And please explain how those models are easily mapped onto human development and outcomes.