Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Bush's Sex Scandal

ivory: I very much doubt that many if any people become homosexual as a result of teenage homosexual rape. If this were true, than the victims of pedophile priests would be gay - instead we see most of them are married family-type guys who were raped as teens. Question: do you think that non-human primates who engage in same sex relations must have arrived at them via a similar aetiology?

There is no real consensus in what is actually going in animal behavior, is there?

Besides, I see the human person as qualitatively different from lower animals because of intellection, volition, more complex emotional processes, interiority, language, ideation, etc. So any 'evidence' from lower animals is only by way of analogy.

Can not an argument be made that homosexual behavior in lower primates is actually a bad trait that homo sapiens sapiens has begun to evolve out of? Sort of like the way we no longer accept infanticide though the lions still kill the pride of the vanquished? Again, the same information can be interpreted in different ways.

But, for the sake of argument, I would have to say 'no' to your question because of the lack of (perceptible) ego in lower animals. If there is no self-reflectivity, then there is no sense of violation, shame, guilt, necessarily causal connection between pain/pleasure and the event, etc. Now, I do know that dogs for instance seem to act guilty (for instance when they poop on the carpet). I am not convinced that such behavior requires self awareness to explain -- it could easily be happening on the level of the imaginarium and emotional complexes in the animal. I think it is in our human nature to anthropomorphisize animal behavior beyond what is really there.

Do you have any evidence or material in particular about primate behavior that would indicate otherwise?

Yours,

Steve

Steve - "I would have to say 'no' to your question because of the lack of (perceptible) ego in lower animals. If there is no self-reflectivity, then there is no sense of violation, shame, guilt, necessarily causal connection between pain/pleasure and the event, etc."

"Do you have any evidence or material in particular about primate behavior that would indicate otherwise?"


Yes. (1) Observation for many hours of higher primates in large zoo environments. (2) Extensive primate studies by Hrdy, Goodhall and others.

The social behavior is quite complex and clearly involves awareness, social rules, the ability to anticipate others' reactions (indicating self-awareness and the ability to analogize to others's self awareness), altruism, play beyond that necessary for survival, etc.

Perhaps you will say nothing can be "proven" by these means, but then in a certain sense one can never be *certain* that another person really exists (how do I know *for certain* that you are not a computer program?) I know that *you* are another person with self-awareness etc. only by analogy and observation. The same evidence leads to the belief that higher primates (and maybe dolphins) are self-aware and social and capable of altruism.

Hellooooo!

Posted a few days ago:


Originally posted by ivorythumper:
There is, however, no conclusive (or even truly indicative) evidence that homosexuality is a natural state. No evidence (yet) for a gay gene.

Quite to the contrary, all the homosexuals that I've talked to (Christian or not, celibate or not) were at some point "initiated" into the life style -- at a (pre or post) pubescent adolescent age.


Not sure what sort of logical constructs you would require before you defined something as "indicative" of homosexuality as a natural state. But the presence of homosexual behavior in animals is not uncommon. I would define that as somewhat "indicative of a natural state."

I also doubt whether the animals "were initiated into the gay lifestyle." Sounds like some X-rated Gary Larson cartoon.

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom

Nina: Good repost. I assumed ivory read this before, but maybe not. Here is a sample: "The bonobo, an African ape closely related to humans, has an even bigger sexual appetite. Studies suggest 75 percent of bonobo sex is nonreproductive and that nearly all bonobos are bisexual. Frans de Waal, author of Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, calls the species a "make love, not war" primate. He believes bonobos use sex to resolve conflicts between individuals."

Oh, the avenues for great ribald jokes this opens up! I will, however, refrain.

Matt: "Oh, the avenues for great ribald jokes this opens up! I will, however, refrain"

Oh, please don't refrain. I need some good jokes (I am home with the flu now.)

And the parallel of utilitarian homosexuality in prison does not occur to you?


Complex it may well be -- obviously a lot is going on which makes it more of an interesting study than that of clams or garden snails.

My questions back to you are:
(1) how do you know that this is what is really going on? (the problem of anthropomorphizing);
and (2)what is going on here that cannot be explained through a classical rat-psych understanding of the powers of the imagination and emotions, quite short of interiority, self reflection, volition and intellection?

It would seem that by wielding Oakham's razor, if these can be explained through a more simple schema of non-rational, non self aware brain functions, as relatively highly developed as they are, then the extrapolation to accord these primates or dolphins powers of self-awareness is not only unnecessary, but unduly complicated. I've seen film footage of dolphins "counting" and "spelling" and "looking at themselves in mirrors" -- all interesting stuff, but nothing that requires faculties capable of ideation or interiority. In rat-psych all this occurs on the level of the imaginarium (which accounts for pattern recognition and phantasms), not the rational mind.
No need for an epistemological crisis, Jeff. Our primary sense data, conjoined in the common sensorium can let you *know* that your wife and child really do exist quite independent of you. You do not really *know* these things through analogy and (detached) observation but through the immediacy of participation. You only know the *ideas* of them through analogy. So while I can agree with you that they may lead you to a " belief that higher primates (and maybe dolphins) are self-aware and social and capable of altruism", these ideas are by way of analogy with other information that you hold to be valid and may not at all correspond with fact.

Again (for the sake of argument) how would you answer the charge that
bi-sexual/ homosexual behavior in lower primates is actually a bad trait--an aberrant phase in evolution-- that homo sapiens sapiens has begun to evolve out of? Sort of like the way we no longer accept infanticide though the lions still kill the pride of the vanquished? Why privilege a certain interpretation?

I hope your flu clears up -- I have a great recipe for "Theraflu hot buttered rum" that works for me!

Jeffrey et al:

Regarding The Forgotten Ape, how were you able to overlook the paragraph just above it?

Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it."

Absolutely NO puns on the word "macaque" are allowed!

Nina - I've read Hrdy and Goodhall. Any other good primate studies you know about? Its been a while since I have read about this topic.

I often wonder why there is so much hair splitting and discussion about what animals do when homosexuality is discussed, but never when heterosexuality is discussed.

Why must homosexuals justify the physical expression of their love for each other based on what animals do, when heterosexuals would be aghast if someone said they have the right to physically express their love for their spouse because apes engage in the same activity.

Intimately sharing one's body with another is a beautiful and sacred expression of love. How can anyone see such an expression as wrong?

*bump*

Jeff: above I posted in response and asked a couple of questions back to you.

I hope your flu is clearing up.

I am off for a hike in the sunny and balmy desert, so I'll take a look back later.

Cheers,

Steve

ivory: What questions? About consciousness and social behavior in non-human primates? About the relevance of facts about primate sexuality to moral arguments on human sexuality?

Enjoy the desert. I am stuck at home with only my Pete Johnson cds for company. The Tamiflu and fluids seem to be working. I got it within the first 12 hours of symptoms.

And the point about Oakham's razor applied...

ivory: Briefly, the social organization of higher primates is far more complicated than of rats. Observation or reading some primate studies should demonstrate that. If it does not to you, I have no original information to add beyond the studies cited and the Bronx Zoo. What studies have you read that indicates otherwise??

I don't think animal analogies prove anything w/r/t the morality of human behavior (except that dolphins and higher primates can show inter-species altruism, and we probably owe them some back). It was raised to show that the aetiology of homosexuality is likely to be the same in both (i.e. a natural and normal part in the variation of sexual desire in higher primates.) I see no reason to respond to your straw men about lion infanticide in this context. If those examples seem compelling to you, go for it.

One could just as well reverse the argument: there are things that only humans do that are wrong - e.g. sadism and war, where non-human animals seem "better". I believe we are the only species that systematically and regularly kills large numbers of our own kind in war. The fact that animals do or don't or that humans do or don't do something is not a moral argument for or against it. The fact that homosexuality exists in other higher primates does, however, seem like biological evidence that it is a normal and evolutionarily sound part of the sexual drive in higher primates. You are the one who must argue (and no argument has yet been forthcoming except for some nonsense about teen rape) that it is anything different.

Jeff: Before going any further -- rat-psych is short hand for rational psychology, and has nothing to do with rat lab.

Got to go out to dinner, but thought that should be cleared up lest you fail to address my concerns...

ivory: Then I confess I don't see what your concerns are either with Okham or rational psychology. You must expand your point if my post does not seem relevant.

Since you began talking about the social organization of rats, I wanted to clear up that misunderstanding.

OK, very briefly, you posit all sorts of higher mental processes in lower animals -- altruism and intelligence for instance -- things that require ideation and volition. Now in classical rational psychology (philosophical anthropology), these are functions of the mind (intellectus). Yet, I have not seen anything in lower animal behavior that cannot be simply attributed to the imagination and simple emotions(such as dolphins "counting" or "spelling", dogs "dreaming" or "grieving", etc), which we would say that lower animals have since they gain external sense data through their sensory organs and contain these as phantasms in the imaginal memory (the imagination). Hence, Oakham's razor Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate (popularly, 'one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain something') would suggest that if there is no need to ascribe intelligence to dolphins or primates then one ought not do it.

This is a very brief encapsulation. You might look at Henry Koren, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Animate Nature, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1955 for a fuller understanding of the structure of the human person according to St Thomas. This is my preferred model for psychology amd anthropology, so I imagine it will probably inhibit dialogue since our frames of reference and language are so different about these matters.

This is not a straw man, for one thing I did not ascribe it to you or suggest it was the least bit germane to your argument. It was simply an example that you might not agree with, but was meant to indicate that there behaviors that (interspecies evolution assumed for the sake of argument) humanity has only recently begun to (possibly)evolve beyond.
Not really reversible since war and sadism both involve higher functions than lower animals have. A thing does what it does according to its nature. And I am not sure that you want to suggest that homosexuality is a higher function in line with these other bad things. War and sadism might be deficient manifestations of higher functions, but no claim has been made by me that we humans are "better" or "more moral" (a silly construct) than lower animals which are strictly amoral. Even granting your reversal for the sake of argument, it does not answer the question as to why should not allegedly bi/homo/sexual behaviors in lower animals be seen as the aberrant behavior that humanity is evolving out of? Why is this not a plausible explanation?


The evidence for "homosexual" behavior in lower animals is not all that clear as you suggest it to be. Some forms of frottage, nonintromissive mounting, etc occur in bonobos and other groupings. Whether these are for bonding or social dominance (and bonobos seem to be a matriarchal dominant social grouping) or pleasure or some other purpose is not clear. Scientist have yet to find a bonobo bath house.

Present research can't grant your notion that true "homosexuality" is a naturally occurring phenomenon among lower animals. Which leads me to the questions about the anthropomorphisizings that humans tend to do when looking at animals. How do you really know what is going on? In short, you don't and you can't.

It seems to be a matter of transference -- you see what you want to and hope to see. Not particularly good science, and a very weak foundation for deciding that every one else who doesn't live in Jeffreyland is a bigot and a sadist and displays vulgar ignorance, double standards, and misinformation.

Yours,

Steve