Talk:Homosexuality in animals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. 2004-present

[edit] Hyena section

Does anyone have any idea why the hyena section is deleted every now and then?Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Girrafe section

The girrafe part doesnt quite read properly i think their might be a bit mixed up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.199.214 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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? Banjiboi 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. Banjiboi 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)

[edit] 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. Banjeboi 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. Banjeboi 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)

  • Anthrosexual basically meand undefined sexuality, it could be used by some who feels that defining a sexuality is unnecessary.
“ “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." [1] ”
 

--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)