# Does homosexuality exist in the animal kingdom? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 20, 2005, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447 "2005-12-20T13:11:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/61 "2006-01-25T03:59:57Z")
roger, you don’t set the standard for what is and what is not valid scientific evidence and how it is presented. Whether you, personally, are convinced, is not part of the standard. Your presumption that any science is a fraud unless it has snapshots is the kind of thinking we’ve come to expect from anti-evolutionists _(paraphrased from Charlie Daniel’s message board: “show me a monkey changing into a man and I’ll believe in evolution”)_. In other words, it’s not how scientific documentation works. Have you read Bagemihl’s book? It’s not just a flipbook of dirty drawings. There’s a nearly overwhelming amount of textual documentation (it’s a bit of a slog, truth be told). Illustrations are only offered as supporting _illustrations_; they don’t make the case on their own. They’re more useful for showing \*how \*something happens; they’re not used as evidence that something \*does \*happen. I’d be interested to hear your contributions after you actually read the book. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/62 "2006-01-25T10:32:24Z")
> [@roger](#): > > convince the sceptics, like me So you’ve _actually read the book_ then, and weren’t convinced by the scientific rigour? Oh, I forgot. You’re not even convinced by the fossil record that cavemen didn’t hunt dinosaurs. ---
**Author:** ![flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbce88/32.png) [@flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flight)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/63 "2006-01-25T15:24:54Z")
> [@Charger](#): > > Does homosexual _behavior_ equal homosexuality? I’ve seen cows try to hump various things (including yours truly), and I think it’s just a matter of simple horniness. I can’t imagine two bulls alone in a pen say “Nope, don’t swing that way, buddy.” > > Some guy on a drunken binge could have gay sex and he wouldn’t necessarily be gay, just really, really drunk. To an outside observer, he could be seen as gay (or such behavior could be pigeon-holed into “drunk behavior”). > > The point is, it’s hard to determine genuine sexual attraction among animals, since they seem to enjoy humping anything within their parameter. But I’d like to see a bull walk past a herd of cows to spend some quality time with another bull. Then we’d have our answer. This has been documented, though not to my knowledge in cows. See earlier in the discussion for examples. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/64 "2006-01-25T17:07:20Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > Who’s doing this, **Mangetout**? Enlighten us - with evidence, if that’s okay with you. This is ridiculous; you said: > [@roger thornhill](#): > > As are the sketches he includes which purport to demonstrate bestial homosexuality. The lack of solid, scientific evidence in the form of photographs was the subject of a brilliant exposé by Ricky Gervais in his stand-up show ‘Animals’. I took this to mean that you consider Gervais’ comments in this respect to be in earnest; that he _really thinks the drawings fail to support the veracity of the work_ - if you actually meant something else, perhaps you’d better explain it. If you did actually mean that, then I can only imagine you simply fail to understand Gervais’ act; he makes a major theme of _studied ignorance_; he pretends to be an idiot who mistakenly thinks the illustrations are being presented as _documentary proof_ (when of course, they’re not) In the same way that when he says “Stephen Hawking is pretentious because he comes from Kent but speaks in an American accent”, he’s pretending to be an idiot whose attentiion has somehow been escaped by the fact that Hawking speaks using a machine. That’s the whole thrust of Gervais’ act; _he pretends to have missed the obvious point - he feigns ignorance_. That you have described his comments as a ‘brilliant exposé’ demonstrates, I think, that you yourself have also _completely missed the point_. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/65 "2006-01-25T18:22:59Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > With all those dolphins (let’s say 5-10% for the same of argument, assuming that cetaceans have a similar rate of homosexuality to humans) cavorting around doing blowhole sex, there’s plenty of opportunities for these folks to rock the scientific world, convince the sceptics, like me, and make a few bucks on the side. Well, of course they don’t have any need to convince _you_, as a layman - the people they are trying to convince are other scientists, who are professional skeptics. (And of course this kind of information would not “rock the scientific world” at all; polymorphic sexual behavior is quite well known in dolphins. Blowhole sex, while odd, would not be regarded as anything particularly revolutionary to a dolphin ethologist. And respected scientist would not be particularly interested in “making a few bucks” by selling photographs of dolphin porn to someone like you, either.) Although I cannot access the journal on-line, as far as I can tell the source of the information on blowhole sex is the following article, which appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal _Aquatic Mammals_, which has been published by the journal of the European Association for Aquatic Mammals since 1972. Renjun, L., W. Gewalt, B. Neurohr and A. Winkler. 1994. Comparative studies on the behaviour of _Inia geoffrensis_ and _Lipotes vexillifer_ in artificial environments. Aquatic Mammals 20.1: 39-45. This was a study on the Amazon Pink River Dolphin _Inia geoffrensis_ and the similar Chinese White Flag Dolphin, _Lipotes vexillifer_, both freshwater species that inhabit large rivers. From a reference in another scientific article, this summarizes some of Renjun et al’s observations on _Inia_: > [@](#): > > The animals used their penis to touch every part of each other’s body, even to extend them into the blowhole or rarely into the anus; passive animal was swimming in normal posture on the surface underneath in belly-up (Renjun, 1994) While this information might be mind-blowing, so to speak, to someone like you, it’s not all that surprising to scientists. Why you think that it would be necessary for 5-10% of invidual dolphins to do this to have some bearing on the matter is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/66 "2006-01-26T02:47:53Z")
Okay, here’s the state of play: Sentie writes that ‘the list [of examples of homosexuality in the animla kingdom] is pretty impressive’. I add that ‘the sketches [Bruce] includes which purport to demonstrate bestial homosexuality’ are pretty impressive too. I caution however against taking them too seriously as said line drawings contrast with ‘the lack of solid, scientific evidence in the form of photographs’ and that this was the subject of a brilliant exposé by Ricky Gervais. To which you responded: ‘declaring a book invalid on the say-so of stand-up comedian Ricky Gervais is without a doubt the lamest item of argument I have ever seen offered in earnest.’ I never declared the book to be invalid at any point. Therefore, I asked you who might be doing this (i.e. declaring the book invalid). You responded with a lecture on Gervais’s stand-up act which is, with all due respect, pretty self-evident as well as being immaterial and irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/67 "2006-01-26T02:48:56Z")
‘[P]assive animal was swimming in normal posture on the surface underneath in belly-up.’ Any translation into English available? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/68 "2006-01-26T03:43:40Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > I never declared the book to be invalid at any point. Therefore, I asked you who might be doing this (i.e. declaring the book invalid). You responded with a lecture on Gervais’s stand-up act which is, with all due respect, pretty self-evident as well as being immaterial and irrelevant. > [@roger thornhill](#): > > Which genre, you ask? Attempting-to-pull-the-wool-over-people’s-eyes-by-using- **dodgy-science** , I shouldn’t wonder. You think that “dodgy science” is valid science? And you had this to say about Gervais: > [@roger thornhill](#): > > The lack of solid, scientific evidence in the form of photographs was the subject of a **brilliant exposé** by Ricky Gervais in his stand-up show ‘Animals’. > [@roger thornhill](#): > > The interesting thing about the Gervais riff (okay, not expose, but it was **extremely powerful as a call to reality and common sense** ) Emphasis mine. Please, **roger** spare us the bullshit. You referred to the book quite clearly as “dodgy science.” You also evidently took Gervais comments at face value as a serious critique of the book. If you can’t make any factual contribution to the thread, you should at least refrain from denying your own comments and positions that are clearly visible only a few posts above. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/69 "2006-01-26T07:44:21Z")
Read the relevant paragraph again carefully. ‘Genre’ refers both backwards and forwards: backwards to the ‘pencil drawings’, and in particular to the drawing of two male dolphins engaging in blowhole sex, which particular drawing I suggest (not without some hyperbole) will become a ‘classic’. And forwards to the genre of using such free-hand illustrations as attempts ‘to-pull-the-wool-over-people’s-eyes-by-using-dodgy-science’, again somewhat hyperbolically, as would be picked up by the careful reader by my use of the meta-comment ‘I shouldn’t wonder’. I never even came close to describing the book as dodgy science. But, **Colibri** , you still haven’t provided a translation of that text I highlighted. I am, I’m afraid, unable to parse it at all. I look forward to your response as your next factual contribution to the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/70 "2006-01-26T08:32:07Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > Okay, here’s the state of play: Sentie writes that ‘the list [of examples of homosexuality in the animla kingdom] is pretty impressive’. I add that ‘the sketches [Bruce] includes which purport to demonstrate bestial homosexuality’ are pretty impressive too. I caution however against taking them too seriously as said line drawings contrast with ‘the lack of solid, scientific evidence in the form of photographs’ and that this was the subject of a brilliant exposé by Ricky Gervais. To which you responded: ‘declaring a book invalid on the say-so of stand-up comedian Ricky Gervais is without a doubt the lamest item of argument I have ever seen offered in earnest.’ > > I never declared the book to be invalid at any point. Therefore, I asked you who might be doing this (i.e. declaring the book invalid). You responded with a lecture on Gervais’s stand-up act which is, with all due respect, pretty self-evident as well as being immaterial and irrelevant. I’m shaking my head with disbelief as I type this; that you would try to backpedal into denial of something that is in black-and-white text in the previous page of _this very thread_ is just… flabberghasting. How can you describe Gervais’ act as _self-evident_, when you clearly completely mistook his comments on this book as a ‘brilliant exposé’, or a ‘powerful call to reality’ - he was acting the persona of an ignoramus who misunderstood the nature, content and goals of the book and its contents, and you leapt up to agree with this persona. This is far from irrelevant; it completely undermines your stance. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/71 "2006-01-26T14:57:50Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > Read the relevant paragraph again carefully. ‘Genre’ refers both backwards and forwards: backwards to the ‘pencil drawings’, and in particular to the drawing of two male dolphins engaging in blowhole sex, which particular drawing I suggest (not without some hyperbole) will become a ‘classic’. And forwards to the genre of using such free-hand illustrations as attempts ‘to-pull-the-wool-over-people’s-eyes-by-using-dodgy-science’, again somewhat hyperbolically, as would be picked up by the careful reader by my use of the meta-comment ‘I shouldn’t wonder’. I never even came close to describing the book as dodgy science… What bullshit. Even if this is what you meant in the first place, which I doubt, even your back-pedalling still indicates that you intended to cast aspersions on the validity of the book. In any case, any “careful reader” would be driven to madness attempting to derive a coherent message from your posts in this thread. As others have indicated, use of line drawings in illustrating scientifc articles is standard practice. They do not indicate that the science is either “dodgy” or invalid. The research involved appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which indicates the reviewers and the journal editor found the observations, whether illustrated or not, credible and well-supported. I have not found any articles contradicting or disputing the observations. You seem to think that this particular observation is something extraordinary, requiring an exceptional level of documentation. As I said before, this kind of polymorphic sexual behavior is well known among dolphins, and isn’t really that surprising to a scientist. As far as I know, you don’t have any qualifications to evaluate the validity of scientific research; your scepticism is nugatory. Whatever you “wonder” is irrelevant to the subject. **Roger** , when you’ve dug yourself a hole, the best strategy is to stop digging. Further attempts to deny your clearly stated earlier position won’t do you any good. Your posts don’t disappear once you have scrolled past them on your screen; the rest of us can still see them. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Weird\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@The\_Weird\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Weird_One)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/72 "2006-01-26T15:00:14Z")
> [@roger thornhill](#): > > ‘[P]assive animal was swimming in normal posture on the surface underneath in belly-up.’ > > Any translation into English available? Off-hand, I’d say it helps to insert a comma between surface and underneath. When it was at the surface, the dolphin was swimming normally, and when it was below the surface it was swimming belly-up. That’s my layman’s interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447/73 "2006-01-26T15:16:53Z")
> [@The Weird One](#): > > Off-hand, I’d say it helps to insert a comma between surface and underneath. When it was at the surface, the dolphin was swimming normally, and when it was below the surface it was swimming belly-up. That’s my layman’s interpretation. I believe that is probably the correct interpretation. This appears to be a typo in the on-line article that quoted the phrase. If someone is seriously interested in the original article, it is available from [Aquatic Mammals](http://www.eaam.org/aquamamm.htm#Intro), although it requires a subscription. > [@roger thornhill](#): > > I look forward to your response as your next factual contribution to the thread. We are all awaiting your _first_ factual contribution to the thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-homosexuality-exist-in-the-animal-kingdom/336447.md?page=3)