Bisexual Species: Unorthodox Sex in the Animal Kingdom

[ifeelyou]

thought some of u might enjoy this.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species

[Decolonize The Left]

Thanks for posting, it was very interesting and only further convinces me that all humans are bisexual by nature. Which, of course, makes total sense when you think about it. Cheers.

- August

[shorelinetrance]

Great article, i actually brought this up at work yesterday and got a few odd faces from fellow co workers.

[ifeelyou]

Great article, i actually brought this up at work yesterday and got a few odd faces from fellow co workers.

im glad u enjoyed it :)

[communard resolution]

Thanks for posting, it was very interesting and only further convinces me that all humans are bisexual by nature.

I'm usually faced with two criticisms when I bring this up:

1) Homophobes will say "a dog will sometimes jump up on you and fuck your leg. Doesn't mean it has a sexual orientation towards humans."

2) Leftists of the academic variety will bring up the term "animal determinism", meaning that you cannot apply phenomena you observe in the 'animal kingdom' to humans since humans are fundamentally different.

I suspect that "animal determinism" was constructed as a scare word because there is some other animal behaviour (e.g. to do with pecking order) that may be comparable to human behaviour but is less compatible with progressive ideas than, say bisexuality. Therefore, an animal determinist approach could easily lead to the notion of a 'human nature' with all its potentially unpleasant (and politically unwelcome) aspects.

Your opinions?

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm usually faced with two criticisms when I bring this up:

1) Homophobes will say "a dog will sometimes jump up on you and fuck your leg. Doesn't mean it has a sexual orientation towards humans."

Improper analogy. We speak of humans being bisexual, that is, having sexual attractions to both sexes. This 'counter-argument' speaks of an animal having an attraction (or not) to another species. This is not analogous.


2) Leftists of the academic variety will bring up the term "animal determinism", meaning that you cannot apply phenomena you observe in the 'animal kingdom' to humans since humans are fundamentally different.

Terrible argument. Gorillas and chimps problem solve, demonstrate vast social networks, and have basic forms of communication and language, does that mean we can't apply how they learn to humans?

Furthermore, biology is partially based on 'applying phenomena we observe in the animal kingdom to humans.'

- August

[communard resolution]

Improper analogy. We speak of humans being bisexual, that is, having sexual attractions to both sexes. This 'counter-argument' speaks of an animal having an attraction (or not) to another species. This is not analogous.I understand, but if you take it as a less straightforward analogy, what they mean to say is that opportunistic sexual behaviour doesn't constitute a coherent orientation.



Terrible argument. Gorillas and chimps problem solve, demonstrate vast social networks, and have basic forms of communication and language, does that mean we can't apply how they learn to humans?

Furthermore, biology is partially based on 'applying phenomena we observe in the animal kingdom to humans.'I believe those opposed to 'animal determinism' challenge this approach so they can edit out certain aspects of the animal kingdom they feel less comfortable with and at the same time denounce the notion of an essential 'human nature'.

My knowledge of the anti-'animal determinist' position is limited, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[feminist dyke whore]

Thanks for this, tis awesome. I've looked into bisexuality and homosexuality in animals before and people are always so surprised that it's a "natural" occurrence within the animal kingdom.

It makes me wish for a sexually polygamous society. Promiscuous sex for all! :thumbup:

[politics student]

Thanks for this, tis awesome. I've looked into bisexuality and homosexuality in animals before and people are always so surprised that it's a "natural" occurrence within the animal kingdom.

It makes me wish for a sexually polygamous society. Promiscuous sex for all! :thumbup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vGamcQIYs

The dolphins are interesting. :D

[ifeelyou]

thanks, passmore. great clip!

[ashaman1324]

i think all mating intelligent animals are potentially bisexually oriented
just like people, its not a genetic trait, some people are just that way until we can find a way to explain it better
i think all humans have a phase where they consider homosexuality or bisexuality, whether you are for real or not, i hate having to convince close minded people of this constantly

[Pablosdog]

Most animals(spefically mammels) are well documented to be bi-sexual orientated. It's common knowledge that some animals literally swing both ways. Human sexual prefrence is a different story, although that's more based off of culture/social bias and nature.

Rather, animals don't really have a sexual preference, it's just natural in the animal kingdom for certain animals to behave this way. So technically classifying animals as "gay" or straight is ambigious.

Classifying humans as "gay" or "bisexual" is much easier due to cultural/social bias. Homophobia has a sense of labelling either or both as immoral/wrong. Nature shows that it is natural, but Human's ourselves need a label to identify everything with.

[Dean]

Thanks for posting, it was very interesting and only further convinces me that all humans are bisexual by nature. Which, of course, makes total sense when you think about it. Cheers.

- August

Hey, its refreshing to hear someone else say this. My understanding is that human sexuality is narrowed by social and political factors, and that our default orientation is receptive to nearly all forms of productive sexuality (productive meaning loving, positive attitudes - not reproduction).

[JorgeLobo]

This is an anomaly and it is subjective, anthropomorphic and probably political to interpret it to be "homosexuality"or "bisexuality" in the human sense.

I think we understand the ignorance of folks like Pablodog who confidently claim mammals to be effectively multisexual - the poor clown can't even spell mammal ("mammel"). True or not - the claims of bisexuality as the normal state of humans or all mammals offered here are not based on anything but bias - no science relevant to the point is offered.

"Homophobe" comments here as in most contexts are ad hominem.

[apathy maybe]

This is an anomaly and it is subjective, anthropomorphic and probably political to interpret it to be "homosexuality"or "bisexuality" in the human sense.

I think we understand the ignorance of folks like Pablodog who confidently claim mammals to be effectively multisexual - the poor clown can't even spell mammal ("mammel"). True or not - the claims of bisexuality as the normal state of humans or all mammals offered here are not based on anything but bias - no science relevant to the point is offered.

"Homophobe" comments here as in most contexts are ad hominem.

Quick couple of questions, do you think that "homosexuality" and "bisexuality" in humans is natural and OK? Do you think that "homosexuality" and "bisexuality" in humans should be treated as a disorder?

Interested minds eagerly await your answers.

[JorgeLobo]

Natural is subjective - it is what it is. Figure these - like eye color, left handedness or bladder cancer - are within the variations of our species. Not aware there is effective treatment (to what end?) for these and, if there were, figure it would be discretionary.

How do you see it?

[Sprinkles]

Natural is subjective - it is what it is.

How on earth is natural subjective when "it is what it is?"
That makes absolutely no sense at all...



Figure these - like eye color, left handedness or bladder cancer - are within the variations of our species. Not aware there is effective treatment (to what end?) for these and, if there were, figure it would be discretionary.

How do you see it?Sexuality is not binary.

[JorgeLobo]

Sorry sprinkles (what a moronic name) - I suppose you're a bit dense.

The TERM "natural" is subjective. Like "organic" in common usage, it has no objective scientific or technical meaning, a fact that advertising has exploited well to the frustration of FTC, USDA, EPA and other agencies that would attempt regulate "accurate" use of the term. It's easier to say what it is not - most would accept that we can rule out a novel chemical synthesized in the lab. It's debatable as to what it IS - the crux of the debate often being - being is man part of nature.
I've used as few syllables as possible in elaborating - so - IS THAt CLEAR?

Sexuality is not binary??? Thanks for the irrelevancy. I doubt you've enough knowledge of biology or that you're perceptive enough to understand, so I'll not elaborate.

My advice - finish high school.

[Sprinkles]

Sorry sprinkles (what a moronic name) - I suppose you're a bit dense.

The TERM "natural" is subjective. Like "organic" in common usage, it has no objective scientific or technical meaning, a fact that advertising has exploited well to the frustration of FTC, USDA, EPA and other agencies that would attempt regulate "accurate" use of the term. It's easier to say what it is not - most would accept that we can rule out a novel chemical synthesized in the lab. It's debatable as to what it IS - the crux of the debate often being - being is man part of nature.
I've used as few syllables as possible in elaborating - so - IS THAt CLEAR?


Did you have an actual point in this semantical word-salad which pertains to the subject at hand?

The use of "natural" in this context refers to behaviour which is not determined or influenced by artificial external factors like cultural traditions and the social bias on sexuality inherent to them.

The example of "natural" behaviour which the animals in the OP displayed is not subjective - precisely since it is what it is.



Sexuality is not binary??? Thanks for the irrelevancy. I doubt you've enough knowledge of biology or that you're perceptive enough to understand, so I'll not elaborate.
Your refusal to elaborate has in all probability more to do with the fact you don't have a clue what you're babbling about. But please tell me more about how either homosexuality or bisexuality is "unnatural"...



My advice - finish high school.


...the ignorance of folks like Pablodog...the poor clown can't even spell mammal ("mammel").


Degenerate? No - that would describe the effete, socialist wanta be's of the EU. Degenerating? Granted, effeminate weenie's like Obama will certainly accelerate that.

But at this point, the US is still the world's leader.


Given your display of cultural chauvinism, sexism and political ignorance here you're hardly a stunning display of an adequate education yourself.


Judging from Lenin and Stalin's records - communism should be banned. Clearly more folks suffered and died in its brief tenure than in all the religious matters of history.

Why is this guy not restricted yet?

[Black Dagger]

Comrade Joe and JorgeLobo please do not flame, consider this a verbal warning.

[Revy]

Thanks for posting, it was very interesting and only further convinces me that all humans are bisexual by nature. Which, of course, makes total sense when you think about it. Cheers.

- August

As an exclusive homosexual, I don't agree.

The idea that we are all naturally bisexual is just as ignorant as the idea that we are all naturally heterosexual.

Sexuality occurs in a spectrum, with exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality at opposite ends.

[Dean]

Sexuality occurs in a spectrum, with exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality at opposite ends.

The distinction between males and females in regards to their roles, sexuality and features has been blurred significantly. Why should we think that sexuality is a static orientation? Just because you don't feel an affinity for the opposite sex? How does that prove or even indicate that you don't have any heterosexual tendencies?

[Black Dagger]

Sexuality occurs in a spectrum, with exclusive homosexuality and exclusive heterosexuality at opposite ends.

That's one theory, sure. But i think this POV is oblivious to the complex and contradictory nature of human sexuality when viewed through the eyes of history.

I think a good argument can be made that 'Homosexuality' and 'heterosexuality' are socially and historically constructed rather than verifiable biological catergories.Related to this point also, that there is no transhistorical model of human sexualities any more than there is one of 'races' - the way humans characterise sexual behaviour has and does differ across 'cultures', across time itself.
Indeed, the terms 'homosexuality' and following this, 'heterosexuality', were not even invented until the 19thC - and that was in europe, the go-to-place for universal truths it seems (again, see 'races'). This development also accompanied the pathologising of 'homosexuality' in europe (and later other parts of the world to)- as a result of which 'homosexuality'' was treated as a mental disorder rather than as an expression of biology AKA 'regular' or 'normal' sexuality. And that is something that has only changed in the past few decades!

On that point also, same-sex activity has not and does not always, everywhere - even today - denote 'homosexuality' or even a 'degree' (in this spectrum) of 'homosexuality' - because the way individuals and society generally characterises someone, whether it be 'black', 'homosexual', etc. is based mainly on social assumptions about appearance, attitudes, behaviour etc and social norms. The definitions and models have changed over time, but both modern conceptions of race and sexuality draw heavily from 19thC european social and 'scientific' theory for example, which was merely a redrawing of boundaries that had been set even earlier.

Like the aforementioned racial taxonomy, sexual taxonomy is very arbitrary - where behaviours are placed on the spectrum (what the various points on the spectrum are called etc) is again determined by social conceptions of human behaviour - assumptions or stereotyping - more than biology (the same too can be said for 'race'). In the context of history this can be very problematic, with terms like 'homosexual' or 'bisexual' being used anarchronistically to describe figures of the past, Alexander The Great for example.

[Revy]

The distinction between males and females in regards to their roles, sexuality and features has been blurred significantly. Why should we think that sexuality is a static orientation? Just because you don't feel an affinity for the opposite sex? How does that prove or even indicate that you don't have any heterosexual tendencies?
:thumbdown:

If I knew I had "heterosexual tendencies" I would certainly embrace them. I am not gay for political reasons, environmental, or for reasons of trauma and sexual abuse.

I believe, no, I know that by my own nature, I am completely homosexual in my attraction. I think I know myself, okay, and I don't need someone on the Internet to tell me that I am bisexual because all humans are bisexual.

You do realize that there is no social impetus for me to suppress any heterosexual desires? If I had any, I would surely embrace them. I never wanted to be homosexual.

[Dean]

:thumbdown:

If I knew I had "heterosexual tendencies" I would certainly embrace them. I am not gay for political reasons, environmental, or for reasons of trauma and sexual abuse.

I believe, no, I know that by my own nature, I am completely homosexual in my attraction. I think I know myself, okay, and I don't need someone on the Internet to tell me that I am bisexual because all humans are bisexual.

You do realize that there is no social impetus for me to suppress any heterosexual desires? If I had any, I would surely embrace them. I never wanted to be homosexual.

It's very infantile to take on a fluid psychological issue and treat it as if it has consequences for you and you only. You are completely unaware of the reality of AugustWest, Black Dagger and me. On top of that, you seem to take this as a statement against your person - as if you are somehow being "untrue" or lying becasue you don't find attraction to men and women alike. You need to reexamine your attitudes towards psychosexual theory.