Talk:Animal sexual behaviour/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Is this right?

This sentence seems backwards to me.

Male bighorn sheep are divisible into two kinds: the typical males among whom homosexual behavior, including intercourse, is common and "effeminate sheep", or "behavioral transvestites", which are not known to engage in homosexual behavior.

Noit (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Section on Mating, Subsection of Monogamy

  • Mating systems deal with how animal sexuality is integrated into social organization and facilitates reproduction. Monogamy is a mating system. The article on animal sexuality either needs to have a section on mating systems that includes monogamy along with other mating systems, or readers should be referred to the Wikipedia page on mating systems, where they can find the link to the page on Monogamy.
  • The original section was entitled "Opportunism and Promiscuity". The term "promiscuity" can be used to refer individual behavior or to mating systems. Species with monogamous mating systems can have sexually promiscuous individuals, a fact completely lost in how the section was originally written. Biologists and zoologists have created the terms social monogamy and sexual monogamy to reflect this reality. Many socially monogamous species are sexually non-monogamous. However, animals that form socially monogamous pairs but engage in occasional sexual non-monogamy are not generally considered to have promiscuous mating systems. For examples of promiscuous mating systems see bonobos and chimpanzees.
  • It's important to make the distinction between social monogamy and sexual monogamy. Zoologists and biologists do, including Barash (see page 12 of The Myth of Monogamy), a zoologist given a lot of attention in the original version of the section.
  • I added references to scientific articles that document sexual non-monogamy in socially monogamous species.
  • If the article claims something is documented in The Myth of Monogamy, then the quotes should come from that book and have page number citations.
  • The Myth of Monogamy has a broader agenda than simply documenting sexual non-monogamy in socially monogamous species. It uses the fact that many socially monogamous species are sexual non-monogamous to build a case that lifelong sexual monogamy is not natural in human beings. This agenda should be made explicit when pointing readers to The Myth of Monogamy. Also, it should be pointed out that Barash and Lipton are not arguing that sexual monogamy is somehow impossible or undesirable. They are simply arguing it's unnatural and therefore difficult to achieve. This is an important part of the viewpoint expressed in The Myth of Monogamy.
  • I also added a link to the Evolution of Monogamy article, which contains related material.
  • The section on Psychogenic abortion could be incorporated into a section on polygynous mating systems, since it seems to be a phenomenon commonly associated with polygynous mating systems.
  • I combined all material on cross-species sex into the section on cross-species sex. Having a separate section for possible cross-species sex between humnan and chimpanzee ancestors seems to serve no purpose except to try and draw reader's attention.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc62301 (talkcontribs)

Not bad edits. Some material (cites) taken out, might be worth reinstating if valid. The reason that "chuman" and human genetics were separated was to avoid confusing two issues: animal sexuality (which is fairly non controversial) and human evolution/human-chimp sex (which is a separate topic and could be quite controversial). The main subject is not helped if a chunk of what some would see as extraneous material to make a point, is merged into it. So it was placed in a separate section to make clear it was scientifically relevant, but distinct. Do you feel okay now that's explained, putting the human-related material in a separate section? FT2 (Talk) 22:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That makes sense. Two sections seem okay from that perspective, so feel free to change that back. Also, feel free to reinstate or add back in any cited material I deleted. I expected a back-and-forth process of changes to the edits I made. Also, I hope someone else has time to write a little something up on other types of mating systems in animals. I'm already committed to working on other Wikipedia articles. kc62301 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 04:54, June 12, 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up question: theres a big chunk of human monogamy. That's not really relevant to animal sexuality. Would you be okay with it being moved to an article that covers monogamy in humans? Perhaps with a note to say that discussion of these findings in a human context is at (article link)? FT2 (Talk) 08:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. But with a qualification. If we're not going to discuss human monogamy at all in this article (which is fine), then we should not claim or hint that the rarity of monogamy in animals suggests monogamy is unnatural in humans. If we're going to claim or hint that the rarity of monogamy in animals suggests monogamy is unnatural in humans (which is also fine), then we should fairly portray the context and the limits of that claim. I'm currently revising the article on monogamy. Check out the draft at Monogamy Draft. I have a section (see Value of Monogamy) which mentions the claim that lifelong sexual monogamy is unnatural or unrealistic. Some of the material might be integrated into that section. I have a feeling it won't be long before we have to create a stub/index page that points people to various articles on monogamy: animal monogamy (in this article on animal sexuality), evolution of monogamy, incidence of monogamy, values and views on monogamy, psychology of monogamy, sociology of monogamy, and so forth. Not quite there yet IMHO. kc62301
I dont think this article should be seen as a means to covertly lead into human sexuality. It should look at animal sexuality as the end in itself. best let it be on animal sexuality, with a link of "See Also" to point to related articles ion human sexuality. In that sense I think we agree, it shouldnt claim or hint anything about "animals do X so hjumans do Y". Thats a study for human monogamy, not animal sexuality. FT2 (Talk) 23:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we agree. I like your style. :-) kc62301
Thanks. :) can you do the move? Since its your material and you know how you feel its hould best be handled? Maybe move it to monogamy or evolution of monogamy, in some section like "Comparisons with animal monogamy" maybe? FT2 (Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. I added headings for polygyny and promiscuity, plus a tiny blurb about promiscuity, just so monogamy wouldn't be the only mating system in that section. Someone might want to reorder the sections based on the fact that polygamous mating systems are more common and therefore deserve priority in discussion. That would be fine with me. I already had a section in my draft revision of the monogamy article about human sexual monogamy being unnatural. It even included a quote from Barash and Lipton. But I replaced that quote with one from their book, the Myth of Monogamy, since they are probably best known for that book. I have no further plans to touch this article for awhile. Nice working with you! kc62301

Use "Gay" or "Homosexual" with Animals?

Hi, please contribute to this new page. I'd particularly like us to have good documentation from webpages or journal articles, as this is a controvertial subject. Thnx! --zandperl 02:59, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article used the phrase "gay penguin" at one point. I decided to change it to "homosexual" (while restructuring the sentence), because the word "gay" is loaded (referring, in my understanding, to the idea that one can be homosexual and not unhappy about it). Where "faggot" is pejorative, "gay" is complimentary -- well, it was. "Gay" can be used pejoratively, too, but that's a recent development. Of course, "gay" is a common and acceptable term in reference to a human, so I would have no objection if it were. But I don't think loaded terms really apply to animals so well, because they don't have the social framework we do and we're taking concepts that normally apply to humans and applying them to animals. It's kind of like calling an insect that cannibalizes its children "pro-choice", or referring to an animal that defends its children to the death as "pro-life". See what I mean? I think the only use of "gay penguin" would be if we were to anthropomorphize the penguin, in this specific case, anthropomorphizing it humorously (since there's no other reason to), which I don't really think works in an encyclopedia. Anybody agree or disagree with me here? --Furrykef 19:20, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While agree that it seems ridiculous to discuss non-human animals using many terms which apply to humans, such as rape, I absolutely disagree that you have "homosexual" is not loaded. See User:Hyacinth/Style_guide with a grain of salt for info. Hyacinth 21:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm technically bisexual, myself, just to be clear (and note that neither "heterosexual" nor "bisexual have inherent negative connotations). Sometimes I jokingly describe myself as "gay" just to see if I can ignite any flames, but I'm not, really. I tend to be physically attracted to females, but can be emotionally attracted to either sex equally (which transcends physically attraction in my opinion), so I really can't take the idea of people necessarily fitting neatly into "gay", "straight", or "bi" seriously; it's merely convenience. Getting more on topic, clearly this whole name game is a troublesome issue...however, I do think "homosexual" is preferred in clinical texts, which is the kind of tone we would like to establish here. In my understanding, Wikipedia is reluctant to make judgement calls on volatile issues, rather, it likes to reflect current judgement. Our problem here is that, if I were to accept your argument completely, neither "homosexual" nor "gay" are NPOV. So here we must choose the lesser of two evils...I still suggest that a clinical text would use "homosexual" and it's most appropriate here. "Homosexual" can be a loaded term, for sure, and you're right that few are self-described "homosexuals", but this word has been used numerous times in neutral ways in clinical texts, so...hmm. --Furrykef 13:26, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I decided to go with the solution of "same-sex" in the sentence in question (as you suggest on your page), not only as a compromise but because it reads better, so everybody wins. However, that doesn't handle the rest of the article including its very title. --Furrykef 13:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
To be further clear, I agree that "homosexual" can be loaded but whether it is depends entirely upon context (whether or not the word's origin was loaded). If I point to you and say in a disdainful voice, "You're a homosexual!", it's pejorative, no question. If I point to myself and say "I'm a homosexual," it might be self-deprecating humor (not deprecating because I'm implying I'm gay but the way I'm expressing the thought). If I motion towards a third person and say in a straight (no pun intended) voice to the second, "he's homosexual," it's unclear and judgement as to the connotation would depend on what the second person knows of my character. But if I said the phrase "forming homosexual pairs" (as I did in my revision of the "gay penguin" sentence), and with no sign of negative connotation anywhere else, I'd argue that it's neutral, because the term is used in a matter-of-fact way. Moreover, I think "homosexual" in reference to a couple is a bit different, connotation-wise, from in reference to a person. --Furrykef 13:41, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Furrykef, as you seem thoughtful, polite, and informed, I invite you to participate in discussions on terminology at: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Identity, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity, and their respective talk pages. Hyacinth 22:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the idea of "gay animals". I have learned that there is no proof that the penguins and swans were actually engaging in sexual activity. I believe they love each other like brothers or very close friends. And gay monkeys, they were in a state of drunkeness. They were drunk, they were horny, they had sex. They didn't know or care what they were having sex with. Thus, there is NO PROOF that there is homosexuality in animals. --Yancyfry jr 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be extremely confused about what the definition of homosexuality is. --mboverload@ 02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
And everybody seems to confused by the distinction between "homosexual" and "gay". They are not synonyms. "Gay" is a complex of social roles that is a creation of late-20th-century Euro-American culture, and has dubious meaning in human cultural contexts outside that culture and time, to say nothing of non-human contexts. Whatever arguments may be made about anthropomorphism and selective interpretation of observed behaviour, it is possible for non-human animals to be homosexual; that is, it is possible that they may form sexual pair-bonds with partners of their own sex. It is, however, flatly impossible for them to be gay. --7Kim 10:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Homosexuality is the romantic attraction to those of the same sex. They were attracted when they had no control over themselves. -Yancyfry jr
Attractions are by definition beyond anyone's control. Haiduc 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"Homosexual" is the preferred term in scientific works on the matter. I suggest sticking to that. Petter Bøckman (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


In Chiplun, Maharashtra, India there are at least 100 donkeys resident there on the streets. By some strange coincidence all donkeys also happen to be male. Residents are witness to actual anal sexual intercourse between two male donkeys many a time. Anyone interested in researching...? [[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ]] 19:31, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Which begs the question of why anyone should presume that anal intercourse in and of itself defines a male animal as homosexual, particularly where no females of the species are present. Dare I suggest that this interpretation is guided by the stereotype that butt-sex is the alpha and omega of male homosexuality? --7Kim 10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. If animals engage in same-sex intercourse (and penetration by one donkey with his penis into another donkey's anus definitely sounds like sexual intercourse) then the animals are engaging in a homosexual act. Same-sex and homosexual are synonyms. Guided by the stereotype that butt-sex is the alpha and omega of male sexuality? No. Guided by the fact that butt-sex is still sex,and, hence, would be same-sex intercourse? Yes98.135.74.15 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)blushingpunkgirl.


I have personally observed what appeared to be same-sex sexual behavior between two male lions at the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. Specifically, one lion displayed his penis (bright red, kind of hard to miss) and mounted the other. There was, as I recall, a good deal of roaring involved on the part of the lion on top, though I cannot testify as to whether he was experiencing an orgasm or simply an enjoyable stretch with his partner serving as yoga mat. Moreover, I have no way of knowing whether this is sexual behavior, or perfectly innocent and virginal dominance behavior -- perhaps lions are kinks and can't tell the difference themselves. :) --FOo 00:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Liger fertility

This page states that ligers (a cross between a lion and a tiger) are normally fertile. However, the Liger article states that "Most ligers are sterile; however, a few births have been recorded." Anyone know more about this? If nobody knows, I'll change "normally fertile" to "sometimes fertile."

They are not normally fertile. Nate | Talk Esperanza! 20:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


Added mention of Spotted Hyena. Saw reference to sexual relationships on the BBC Living Planet documentary series. Spotted Hyena wiki page also mentions dominance relationships but nothing on sexual play. --MJW 12:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Another BBC documentary but I missed the first 4 minutes and have no idea what it was called. Probably Wildlife on One. I'm a bit worried about my generalisation on "highly sexual", since it's probably completely meaningless. Can anyone improve or debunk the dolphin thing? --MJW 12:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although you can probably find more detailed info by searching the internet, I'll just provide some personal observations. I worked for a short while for the US Navy, and the dolphins that they had were definitely "highly sexual". My guess is that the behavior was sometimes just social, and sometimes related to dominance (but that's just my guess). They also had one male dolphin who would regularly masturbate in the water inlet. BlankVerse 16:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I have learned, Dolphins are the only animals who enjoy sex. So, if they enjoy it, my guess is they will "do it" more often. --Yancyfry jr 20:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Maybe we should rename this article to Sexuality in animals or Animal sexuality. Its branching off from the topic of homosexuality with inter-species sex already, and I'm sure more work could be done to branch further. Also, the human homosexuality articles are (if I remember correctly) being renamed along similar lines. -Seth Mahoney 02:48, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --FOo 03:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Animal sexuality would be my preference. -Sean Curtin 23:08, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
The title Animal sexuality implies that the article is going to deal with heterosexual reproductive sexual behavior too -- which is a vast topic of its own. As it stands, however, the article deals with homosexuality, interspecies sex, parthenogenesis in lizards, the clitoris of the female hyena, and other traits and behaviors that are unexpected or considered unusual.
This article has gone from being about homosexuality in animals to being a highlight film of freaky weird animal sex or something. :) Exactly what title fits that subject, I'm not sure I want to say. Freaky weird animal sex is almost certainly not it. --FOo 03:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Something like Deviant animal sexual behavoir pops into mind, but that's certainly not going to do it. Queer animal sexuality? No. This always gets so tricky! Though... I suppose we could name it Animal sexuality and leave any particularly interesting heterosexualish animal behavior to the articles on the particular animal, since someone looking for heterosexualish animal behavior is likely (maybe?) to want to know about it with respect to a given animal. If there is any generalized heterosexualish behavior that many animals engage in, or something like that, it could be thrown in. Then again, maybe we should keep this article and move all the non-homosexualish stuff to another article (how did it get here anyway?). -Seth Mahoney 04:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Alternative animal sexuality? We mustn't be judgemental, after all ;-) I do totally agree that a rename is in order; this article covers way more than just homosexuality in animals. Just wish I could be more help. TomTheHand 04:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we should ask the animals what they would prefer? -Seth Mahoney 05:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
My guess is they'd consider it to be none of our business! TomTheHand 05:08, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The current title, "Homosexuality in animals", is anthropomorphic, so it is inappropriate as an encyclopedia title. "Animal sexuality" is a highly ambiguous title, so again, it is inappropriate. Something like "Same-sex pairing in animals" (or more specifically "Same-sex pairing in Vertebrates") might be the best title (For example, the articles on the "lesbian" seagulls are usually some like FEMALE-FEMALE PAIRING AND SEX RATIOS IN GULLS: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE (PDF). BlankVerse 16:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we did use pairing, I'd recommend making this article and Animal sexuality redirects to it. -Seth Mahoney 18:30, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
"Homosexuality in animals" is not anthropomorphic. It means same-sex sexuality. I believe you're drawing a "homo sapiens" connection here when you should be drawing a connection to words such as homogeneous, homophone, or homotype.TomTheHand 00:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Did we ever reach a consensus about this? -Seth Mahoney 22:56, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we did not ;-) TomTheHand 00:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay, here's a statement of intent: I'm going to change the title of the article to Animal sexuality on April 22nd if there aren't any new objections by then. I will also make Homosexuality in animals a redirect to Animal sexuality. If anyone thinks of a better title, we can use that. For the time being, though, Animal sexuality seems our best bet, since the article is no longer about Homosexuality in animals. -Seth Mahoney 04:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
That sounds good to me personally. It's been kind of a mess coming up with a term, and while Animal sexuality is a little general, if there's a problem in the future we can deal with it then. In the meantime it's definitely an improvement over the current title. TomTheHand 13:45, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Bad Link in cross species sex

The link for dog and cat is dead, just so you know. Bremen 14:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cross Species

The links (photo) provided in this section are unscholarly/original research at best, and completely fake at worst. The dog and cat one looks like it may have been created in photoshop, and there's no accompanying text. I tried going up to higher level directories, but couldn't get anything. The antelope and zebra one is so out of focus and low resolution that I can't even tell that they're real animals. And that image comes from this website, which is certainly not scholoarly! I'd say both links should be removed. Blackcats 03:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Critical Analysis

This could be an interesting subject, but this Wiki entry is full blatant mistakes and misrepresentations and seems to be more politically focussed than discussing actual science.

First, the reference to the Penguin's is absurd. You claim that they have mated for life, yet the reference is only from 2004 ! Are the penguin's dead? In fact, some sites now claim that this behavior was only transient, and has now stopped. So what is the real story!

Second, you should stop quoting any and all references to Kinsey's work as valid and accepted statistics! This work is over 50 years old and is no longer relevant, and has been supplanted by the more modern, extensive 1994 NORC/University of Chicago study! In particular, the popular "one in ten" statistic is completely unreliable and generally now understood to be over-estimated. Please see: [1]

Third, it is unclear what the study on Ram's says, and the statistics you quote seem to be way too high, again. Consider the link [2], which indicates that the real number of gay rams is less that %2

Additionally, the Ram study has many facets which make this study only dubiously related to human sexual preference and behavior--and you should NOT IMPLY otherwise. For example, it has been suggested that the Ramn behavior may be attributed to a single point mutation which gives rise to an overproduction of the enzyme aromatase. Furthermore, this may be a genetic defect resulting result of inbreeding. In any event, this behavior seems to resemble human hermophrodism (which are also known genetic defects) more than "biological homosexuality"

The discussion listed above on the Rams, however, is more informative.

In humans, there is NO EVIDENCE that homosexual behavior has such a direct a genetic component in humans--this is quite easy to verify and the the basic "Twins Studies" on human homosexual males disprove this trivially.

Fourth, the discussion of Bonobos is somewhat misleading and not properly cited. It should be noted that the female clitoris has apparently eveolved specifically to encourage female-female "grinding," and this is quite distinct from all other apes and well as humans. As for the male-male sexual interaction, I would like to see the specific reference, as this is NOT discussed in well know Scientific American article on Bonobos. Please cite this explicitly.

Fifth, it is a gross mischaracterization to imply any sam-sex behavior in animals is somehow "evidence" of human homosexuality beging biological! Please go back to high school and review the Scientific Method ! At best, this observation can only serve as a means to form the hypothesis, and there is absolutely no reproducible and credible evidence that human homosexuality or human sexual preferences are biologically driven. In particular, you compare the Ram study to Simon LeVay's work on studies on the homosexual male brains, and, yet this work has never been reproduced, even after 10 years!. There are tons of isolated studies scattered thorughout the literature in all scientific areas; a single published study is certainly not a preponderance of the evidence.

Additionally, there are other obviousy differences between humans and animals. For example, humans do not go into heat ! Consequently, humans engage in sex for pleasure, to humilate and control, for self-validation, and host of other reasons beyond mating. There is also no disucssion of pederasty among animals, which is the most well known form of human homosexual behavior.

Sixth, as for the cross specices sex--yeah, my aunt' dog used to try to hump my leg when I came over for the holidays. What the hell does that mean?

Seventh, you missed that very famous "Science" front page article (again, 10 years ago) which demonstrates how to control the sexual preference sof fruit flies (again, via a single mutation). This is quite amusing, as it shows a large collection of males flyes all trying to mate other amels, and self-organized into a large ring. I am sure you can find the reference if you look for it.

Eighth, many of these citations consider animals in captivity (without adequate females present). This includes the Rams (which will mount a female if given the chance), the Donkeys, the Penguins, and the Lions. This appears to resemble humans in prisons rather than a "normal" state.

Dude, this is a wiki--you maybe right--but there is no one person writing this article. There is no "you." JohnJohn 08:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Just to criticize your critical method, "For example, humans do not go into heat! Consequently, humans engage in sex for pleasure" ... a citation for your assumed cause-effect? "You claim that they have mated for life" ... the article needs a citation there, and perhaps the word "apparently", that would indeed be more accurate. But it does not seem to be referring to the 2004 pair, but other pairs, several of them, from the text. A citation is needed. "there are other obvious differences between humans and animals" ... This isn't an article on human sexuality, which appears to be your big issue. What humans do or don't do homosexually is not the subject here. "This appears to resemble humans in prisons" ... please read Wikipedia:No original research, how it "appears" to you is irrelevant. This wiki documents various things, but your or my personal opinion isn't one of them. FT2 (Talk) 11:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The other issue I have with the above comments is this: "gross mischaracterization to imply any same-sex behavior in animals is somehow 'evidence' of human homosexuality being biological" the article doesn't in fact state the fact you are saying... "There is also no disucssion of pederasty...which is the most well known form of human homosexual behavior." ... Again you see, I think your issue is homosexuality, because I'm not aware that pedastry is either the best known, or most common, form of homosexuality in humans, or indeed that anything about human homosexuality is other than tangetial to this article.
Is it my imagination, or is there an agenda around homosexuality in humans here? "Humans don't go into heat, humans and animals are different, it's a gross misrepresentation to say that homosexuality in humans is biological, pedastry is the best known form of homosexuality..." Just to clarify, the article isn't about human sexuality, human homosexuality, or your views and beliefs about how and why humans or animals may opr may not engage in homosexual activity. FT2 (Talk) 11:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

why was the link i added removed? it wasn't anything like a test, it was a relevant article on the subject. article at the library

no reason given so i'm putting it back

reverted again with no discussion involved :(
Removed again - as per my edit summary, is not at all a reliable source - it's a humor website. Also, per WP:SPAM, we don't need to add additional links to outside pages which aren't cited in building the article, we are WP:NOT building a web directory here. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No heterosexual behaviour in animals?

The article "sex" is divided into plant sexuality and human sexuality. This article should provide the basis for the third major category, but as several editors have long agreed above, it doesn't cover male-female animal sexuality or reproduction. Any biologists able to expand the article? ntennis 01:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Cross Species In Fiction?

Should fictional portrayals of cross-species sex (Fritz the Cat being a good example) be mentioned? I tried to put a note in the section for these fictional portrayals, but could not figure out how to phrase my paragraph, and so the item was never submitted. (Ibaranoff24 05:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC))

If you have an idea for a paragraph, but just don't feel that its quite how you'd like it, you can always post what you've got to the talk page and let other editors go over it there. -Smahoney 16:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, here's what I got:
Cross species sex is a frequent theme and/or source of humor in adult-oriented anthropomorphic comic books and animated films, such as Robert Crumb's Fritz the Cat.
Seems a little light. (Ibaranoff24 01:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Don't forget fiction about cross species pairings between humans and animals, humans and mythological creatures, and humans and aliens. There are many science fiction and fantasy romance novels on this subject. (sunandshadow 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC))


I think the "non-human" in the title is unnecessary. Humans are technically animals, but I think it would be plainly obvious to anyone reading the article, or even just the title, that it isn't about animals. Putting in a disclaimer at the beginning saying For human sexuality in particular, see Human sexual behavior or something to that effect is in my opinion preferable to the awkward phrasing of the current title. -Branddobbe 07:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Simpler is better. ntennis 08:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. see also my post above. This article seems to have gone through a few name changes in the past, though it's hard to follow them all. I think it started out as Homosexuality in animals, then moved to Animal sexuality before being renamed with its current title. Which is deceptive, as heterosexual reproductive behaviour appears to be absent. ntennis 08:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
No objections in over a week so I moved the page to "Animal sexuality". ntennis 01:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree heavily: non-human animal sexuality is much clearer. Animal sexuality could also refer to humans. 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)anonymous

I agree with the others that the current title is quite silly. "Animal" is frequently used in the sense of "non-human animals" and although I don't particularly favour that usage, whether it's correct or not has nothing at all to do with the topic as long as it's clear. Someone looking for information on humans clearly wouldn't come here. A disambiguation link if necessary would be fine. Dcoetzee 13:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

{{sexual orientation}}

I've restored this tag. Besides the fact that the study of human sexual orientation can not be done in a vaccuum and must consider how other animals behave, this aricle is one of the articles listed in the template. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Could it be retitled "Sexuality" rather than "sexual orientation" then? FT2 (Talk) 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, since sexual orientation is only one aspect of animal sexuality, there seems no reason why the tag has to be located at the top of the article. It could be located in a section on homosexual behavior in animals, or even in the See Also section. kc62301

====>>>>>>This page keeps trying to claim that roy and silo the gay penguins do not go into heterosexual relations. This is a flat out lie. Silo has paired up with a female.