July 17, 2004
GIRLS JUST WANNA HAVE FUN
Lesbian Monkeys (Liesbeth de Bakker, Radio Netherlands, July 13th , 2004)
The sexual behaviour of some Japanese macaques is challenging one of Darwin's central assumptions: that of choosing the best mate to ensure the best offspring. Some apparently lesbian macaques appear to get together for pleasure - not reproductive or social gain.According to Charles Darwin, females should be choosy, sit back and let the males compete for them. This way the females are able to select the most attractive - i.e. the most successful - male as their preferred mate. But the behaviour of some Japanese macaques is challenging this idea.
Dr Paul Vasey of the University of Lethbridge, Canada, has observed a lot of homosexual behaviour in Japanese macaques in the wild. "Some females solicit each other for sex using a whole variety of vocalizations, gestures and postures, such as hitting the ground or lip quivering. Between bouts of sexual activity they stay together in a temporary but exclusive sexual relationship called a ‘consortship'. They'll follow each other, groom each other and sleep together as a unit."
These lesbian relationships appear to be very strong. In 92.5% of the cases males are unable to break them up, says Dr Vasey: "The female, who is the object of both male and female attention, chooses to remain with her female partner rather than begin a new courtship with the intruding male."
As gay relationships do not result in reproductive success, Vasey spent many years figuring out what other benefit there might be for the individuals involved. After testing several hypotheses, it became clear that the lesbian monkeys didn't do it for any social benefit, such as alliance formation, conflict resolution or dominance demonstration. "There's no evidence for that at all," says Vasey. "In order to understand this behaviour you need to look at the history of the species, and think more in terms of evolutionary history."[...]
So, says Vasey, there is an immediate sexual reward associated with mounting and clearly some females are preferred over some males because in general females are more co-operative and less aggressive. "At that point in the evolutionary history of the species, a female might be prepared to compete with males for access to a specific partner. He might be competing for a reproductive opportunity, but from the female's perspective she's competing for fun."
Why we see instances of homosexual behaviour among animals is undoubtedly food for thought, but isn’t Darwinism becoming a bit of a postmodern joke when systematic studies of many years’ duration conclude that a species selects for fun?
Mr. Judd;
It's just a error in the system. I realize that a large part of the problem is evolutionist speaking as if evolution produces perfectly adapted creatures with optimal behaviour, but that's just not the case. Because competition for survival is relative, a species doesn't have to be perfect but only relatively well adapted. These lesbian relationships don't matter as long as the participants reproduce sometimes (enough to hit the replacement rate). My view on human homosexuality is the same - it's biological to a large extent and represents a development error. Based on the number of homosexuals who married and had children, it doesn't seem like an error that was particularly counter-reproductive.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at July 17, 2004 10:30 AMAOG
That was me. Are you suggesting these ladies are just having a few wicked giggles with the sisters but can be counted on to close their eyes and think of monkeyland when duty calls?
I would buy "system error", but that does not seem to be the way this guy sees it. He seems to think this is all consistent with evolutionary history and that these macaques are selecting in a way that can be rationally explained through Darwinism. Isn't it amusing that he reaches this conclusion in an era that celebrates gayness as qualitively equal and takes a "choice" perspective on general morality and lifestyle? Tak about projection!
Posted by: Peter B at July 17, 2004 1:23 PMMaybe he is just lying? That's what Kinsey and Masters and Johnson did and look at the damage they did.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at July 17, 2004 4:16 PMDo they reproduce or don't they?
If none of them ever reproduces, then their 'gay' genes don't either. It follows, then, that the behavior is not genetic but social or developmental.
Renewed in each generation among a proportion of females small enough not to affect the reproductive fitness of the entire population. (This follows Darwin precisely, because his theory requires that a sizable fraction in each generation must fail to reproduce; how doesn't matter.)
I don't know who here doesn't understand Darwin, the professor or the reporter.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 18, 2004 12:42 AMYou might want to ask the question "what is the survival pressure that the environment is putting on this tribe of monkeys?" Is there room within their territory for more monkeys? Is their population being pressured by predators, disease or lack of resources? If not, then excessive breeding in this environment may just cause undue competition for resouces within the tribe, and cause social discord among members.
If you really want to try to justify homosexual behavior of this sort, then one possible explanation may be as a way to limit "unproductive" reproduction during times of relative prosperity and maximum population density.
Also, there is sexual selection going on. If only 7.5% of male advances are successful, then only the most persistent, energetic, and desireable males will be successful. Don't you guys know that a lesbian just needs one good man to turn her around?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 18, 2004 1:27 PMMothering studies among other primates may or may not tell us much about us, but they sure do depict a more complicated situation than simpleminded views of the kind in this report.
Among heterosexual chimpanzee mothers in the wild, for example, although most females have offspring, reproductive fitness (offspring who have offspring) is very low among low-social status mothers, for reasons apparently related to those Robert suggests, and other, evidently purely social factors.)
The Darwinian term of art is 'inclusive fitness' and it not just crude birth rate.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 19, 2004 3:44 PM