Thread: Homosexuality in the Animal Kingdom.

Ill never look at a wittle cwitter the same way again.

This post might get a little odd, but I don't mean to hijack this thread. This is simply how I see things.

It's rather interesting, Darwin in general. Since his time, there have been scientific study that men have two main impulses. The first being survival, the second being sexuality.

I'm not too sure I agree *entirely* with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, I think there is ambiguity with the word "fittest". After looking up fittest in the dictionary, the biological definition was worthless, because it was mentioned in terms of Darwin's theory. The only other definition was physically fit. I think it should be reworded "survival of the healthiest", where emotional, physical, mental and any other form of health is included.

As for his theory of sexuality, I think males and females have their own polarity, and they are attracted to the opposite type. I'm not saying that males and females have to stay to stay polarized on either male or female side. I'm not sure we were ever meant to be strictly heterosexual as a society, even though there was a social stigma about it. I don't think we can study animals as simplified humans, in terms of sexuality, the reason follows later.

What makes all of this interesting is the Eastern philosophy, and the idea of chakras. Each chakra actually has a defining characteristic, or importance. That is, when this chakra is healthy or unhealthy, consequential behavior results.

The first or base chakra, the root chakra, is associated with survival. The second, or sacral chakra, is connected with 1-1 relationships, which includes sexuality. It's these first two that Darwin was able to isolate and study. Further, I have read "information" that explains that life is tiered. There are 8 tiers in total, each for dealing with it's corresponding chakra. Non-human animals are on tier two, so they would be working on 1-1 relations including sexuality, while humans are tier three, so they would be working on group relationships. That's why humans and animals would be not comparable, in my view. Bonus points though for the scientist observing that non-humans do use sexuality to bond with another.

Just in case Darwin made any other theories I don't know about, here is the rest of the chakras. As I just said, the third chakra is for group relations, where it is many to one. The fourth would be unconditional love, fifth communcation, sixth intuition which includes psychic ability. The seventh combines all six previous ones.

The best insight into Spirituality that I had ever encountered was indirect. It was an essay on the nature of Humor by a Frenchman. He stated that people laughed from two causes -- ambiguity of meaning was found to be 'funny', and any reminder of Human Mortality. You see, subliminally people think of themselves as purely spiritual creatures, and so any actual reminder of their animal mortal natures evokes a laugh of embarrassed recognition.

so it is that every person who can laugh thinks of himself or herself in essentially spiritual terms.

But to argue that everybody should butt-phuque each other simply because animals butt-phuque each other... well, it reduces us to the same animality that we would be emulating.

But, thank God, we can laugh at any such suggestion.

And those who want to be animals can go phuque themselves.

homosexuality occurs when the species gets overpopulated.


I find that so funny. evolution is mind boggling,
and the human RACE is severely overpopulated.

"we live like penguins in the desert,
why can't we live like tribes?"

Originally posted by Distant Clone
The first or base chakra, the root chakra, is associated with survival. The second, or sacral chakra, is connected with 1-1 relationships, which includes sexuality. It's these first two that Darwin was able to isolate and study. Further, I have read "information" that explains that life is tiered. There are 8 tiers in total, each for dealing with it's corresponding chakra. Non-human animals are on tier two, so they would be working on 1-1 relations including sexuality, while humans are tier three, so they would be working on group relationships. That's why humans and animals would be not comparable, in my view. Bonus points though for the scientist observing that non-humans do use sexuality to bond with another.

Just in case Darwin made any other theories I don't know about, here is the rest of the chakras. As I just said, the third chakra is for group relations, where it is many to one. The fourth would be unconditional love, fifth communcation, sixth intuition which includes psychic ability. The seventh combines all six previous ones.

Good post, but, I disagree with pretty much everything you said.

Humans and (other) animals, according to you, share "survival" and "1-1 relations". Sure, I agree with you up to here. But you say that this is where the similarity ends. First off, I don't like talking about motivations, imperatives, desires, etc as "chakras". But, that's just really a problem of terminology, no substantive problem in my view.

BUT. Both humans and animals participate in group relations, and group relations are JUST as important to (some) animals as they are to humans. Those relations might be less structured and hierarchical, and more simple, amoung animals, but, they have that "group relations chakra" just the same.

The fourth "chakra", I disagree entirely with. There's no such thing as unconditional love, in humans or animals. There are ALWAYS conditions attached. ALWAYS.

The fifth, communication, does have some basis behind. What sets humans apart from animals, is a cpaacity for syntax. Apes can be taught "language", but this does not go beyond the protolanguage of a very small child. They can learn vocabulary, but not syntax. All evidence points to humans developing a capacity for syntax, and thus advanced language, in a "critical period" during childhood development. So, PERHAPS, it can be said that humans possess this "communication chakra" which animals do not. HOWEVER, it is interesting that humans do not possess this chakra before the period of critical development.

The sixth chakra, I also disagree exists at all. I don't believe in psychics, or any of that stuff. I believe in intuition, but I believe it is explainable as a result of subconscious thought, etc. Out brains thinking about stuff at a subconscious level, and delivering the results to us as "intuition".

The Seventh chakra seems irrelevant and superflous, and adds nothing new to the discussion.

I think it also has to do with over population. Animals all need to be pleasured, however, if they see that their kind are overpopulated, they do not want to risk overpopulating even more with impregnating the females. However, they still want the same pleasure, moving on to the male kind.This is just my take.

Their first instinct is food...survival. If they overpopulate and have many offspring, that means less food for them



I do not think animals know of "sexuality" ... i think male or female. It is the same. But they mainly go for females for population.

In nature many species of animals have few behaviors to choose from -- their inventory of behaviors is limited. So when an animal wants to express Dominance, it chooses a behavior from out of its sexual inventories of behavior. So the Dominant Animal will mount the submissive animal. But it is symbolic and not sexual. There is no anal penetration. Or if so, it is intended to convey a sense of humiliation, not love.

So I suspect some Researchers with an Agenda went out to find Homosexual Animals, and were not at all careful about what they observed.

We can see a parallel in many of the Prisons in the World... especially in America which has the largest per capita percentage of Prisoners then any other Nation, advanced or not (using Prison to mask the high unemployment rate it would ordinarily have with its minorities... so 20% of America's Blacks are warehoused in Prisons so they will not be so obviously unemployed when the statistics are examined in an International Context). In these prisons, again where we are dealing with 'Animals', mounting behaviors are used to assert dominance. This is not 'sexuality'. When these Prisoners return to their communities we find that they are indeed sexually oriented toward heterosexuality.

Originally posted by Leo Volont
the Dominant Animal will mount the submissive animal. But it is symbolic and not sexual. There is no anal penetration. Or if so, it is intended to convey a sense of humiliation, not love.

Yeah, I agree with this actually......I used to have 2 cats (one of them died recently) but they used to constantly fight, and the dominant one (i.e , the one who always won) one time mounted the "inferior" one and started making movements that did look sexual, but no penetration was involved.

It was , like you said, to show his dominance.

In nature many species of animals have few behaviors to choose from -- their inventory of behaviors is limited. So when an animal wants to express Dominance, it chooses a behavior from out of its sexual inventories of behavior. So the Dominant Animal will mount the submissive animal. [/b]

You know, usually when an animal wants to express dominance they would choose a behaviour out of the inventories of dominant behaviour. Of course sexuality is often a way of expressing dominance in the animal kingdom, yet it is not the only way to express this. What reason do you have to believe that homosexuality is merely a means of expressing dominance?

And of course you've completely ignored that dominance is not the only function of sexuality. For example in our closest primate relative (the Bonobo) sexuality is a means of greeting, conflict resolution, post-conflict resolution (make up sex ) and as favours for food. In fact, bonobos actually prefer to avoid violence - they are the least aggressive primate we've observed. And yes - they exhibit homosexual behaviour. Male-male, female-female - both oral and anal sex. The list could easily go on for pages.

But it is symbolic and not sexual. There is no anal penetration. Or if so, it is intended to convey a sense of humiliation, not love.

So I suspect some Researchers with an Agenda went out to find Homosexual Animals, and were not at all careful about what they observed. [/b]

Evidence? Bonobos seem to like both male and female homosexual encounters - for them it is clearly a matter of pleasure not humiliation. Japanese macaques seem to be frequently lesbian, again for pleasure. Hell, 8% of rams prefer male sexual encounters. You'd think if they were feeling aggressive they'd just butt horns? Is there some scientific papers I'm not finding that show clearly that every instance of homosexuality in animals is is about dominance or humiliation?

You'd think that seeing human beings can have homosexual behaviour for love/pleasure would convince you that, just maybe, animals can do the same? Talk about an agenda

I'll admit that while I didn't read the whole article, I found it quite interesting what I did read, but I couldn't help but laugh a little. It makes sense though. I mean, >7% of people are homosexual, why not animals too. Just because goats have anal doesn't mean I will, and penis sparring is definitely out of the question for me, but it is nice cold hard evidence that it is okay to be gay, which, knowing some gay people, I am a firm believer in gay rights, so while I laugh a bit at the article, I am not a homophobe, I just find these kind of articles mildly amusing.

I recall a thread kind of like this on another forum I read. There was a topic that basically asked, "What is the evolutionary advantage to homosexuality"? Because, after all, you don't need to be Darwin to figure out that homosexual people don't have genetically-related children and so if there ever was a "gay gene", it would die out pretty much right away, if not at first. You could say gay people are a dying species. If homosexuals have been 'dying' for thousands of years, though, they certainly aren't extinct yet. Maybe they're just slow, or maybe it's something else?

There's probably something else. People (on the forum) noted that gay people do a good job of bringing up kids. I mean, they can act pretty much as "replacement mothers" and that's a big evolutionary advantage right there: looking after the offspring. And there's a nice recent study to show this might actually be a good case for it. Scientists used to think there was a correlation between the amount of older brothers you had and the likelihood of you being homosexual.

Now, though, they don't think it's related to psychological factors. They think that the more times the mother has a child, the women's immune system response increases and makes the fetus more likely to 'grow up gay'*. So after we're done making our baby breeders we create some people who can fulfil the 'mother role'. Convinent, eh? Here's an article about the study (and where I read about it).

So, don't go burning The Origin of Species just yet. This may actually prove it to be more valid.

* So you could say the woman sees the fetus as alien and is trying to kill it off. Yeah, OK, but evolution doesn't care - the baby still lives relatively unscathed but it's gay. All that matters is the outcome, not how she does it.

Originally Posted by Kaniaz

Now, though, they don't think it's related to psychological factors. They think that the more times the mother has a child, the women's immune system response increases and makes the fetus more likely to 'grow up gay'*. So after we're done making our baby breeders we create some people who can fulfil the 'mother role'. Convinent, eh? Here's an article about the study (and where I read about it).
[/b]

I've heard of something similar, and the immunity is from testosterone. Of course, in severe cases a male fetus wont develope its male genitalia fully, or at all. There's a name for it, but I can't recall it off hand. In any case, although the offspring would appear to be a female, they would be genetically identical to a male.

The theory in that link is just goofy. That doesn't make any sense at all. What you just posted however is true, though I doubt it has anything to do with this subject. If you had any kind of testosterone problem, it would show up in your physical appearance.

I don't think the theory is "goofy" (what a great way to dismiss a scientific theory&#33. And I haven't got a clue as to where testorone came into it. Apparently it's to do with "antibodies", which is a pretty vauge definition, but I'm pretty sure testorone is more a hormone than it is an antibody.

P.S. Testosterone. I can't spell that. Testosterone, testosterone, testosterone...