Bruce Bagemihl - Biological Exuberance

4

For some discussion of the parameters, complexities, and variations found in prison homosexuality (including male “pairing” as opposed to “rape”), see Donaldson, S. (1993) “A Million lockers, Punks, and Queens: Sex Among American Male Prisoners and Its Implications for Concepts of Sexual Orientation,” lecture delivered at the Columbia University Seminar on Homosexualities; Wooden, W. S., and J. Parker (1982) Men Behind Bars: Sexual Exploitation in Prison (New York: Plenum). For discussion of similar factors in other types of “situational” homosexuality (i.e., evidence for the nonmonolithic nature of sexual activity in all-male groups), see Williams, W. L. (1986) “Seafarers, Cowboys, and Indians: Male Marriage in Fringe Societies on the Anglo-American Frontier,” chapter 8 in The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture, pp. 152—74 (Boston: Beacon Press).

5

Donaldson, S., and W. R Dynes (1990) “Typology of Homosexuality,” in W. R. Dynes, ed., Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, vol. 2, pp. 1332-37 (New York and London: Garland). Donaldson and Dynes’s typology uses three main axes, representing sexual orientation, gender expression, and temporal or chronological patterning. This triaxial schema has been expanded here to include a number of other axes.

6

For discussion of “axes” not specifically considered here, such as gendered homosexual interactions and the complex manifestation of gender roles in same-sex contexts, see chapter 4.

7

Weinrich, J. D. (1982) “Is Homosexuality Biologically Natural?” in W. Paul, J. D. Weinrich, J. C. Gonsiorek, and M. E. Hotveldt, eds., Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, pp. 197-211 (Beverly Hills, Calif.: SAGE Publications).

8

Gadpaille, W. J. (1980) “Cross-Species and Cross-Cultural Contributions to Understanding Homosexual Activity,” Archives of General Psychiatry 37:349-56; Dagg, “Homosexual Behavior and Female-Male Mounting in Mammals”; Vasey, P. L. (1995) “Homosexual Behavior in Primates: A Review of Evidence and Theory,” International Journal of Primatology 16:173-204.

9

This does not include domesticated species, in which the evidence for exclusive homosexuality is sometimes even more conclusive, as in the recent behavioral and physiological studies of domesticated sheep; see Adler, T. (1996) “Animals’ Fancies (Why Members of Some Species Prefer Their Own Sex,” Science News 151:8-9; Resko et al. 1996; Perkins et al. 1992, 1995. The question of homosexual orientation or “preference” also ties in to the common misconception that animal homosexuality is largely a matter of “necessity” or “last resort,” i.e., a response to the absence or unavailability of the opposite sex. This issue will be addressed more fully in chapter 4.

10

Silver Gull (Mills 1991); Greylag Goose (Huber and Martys 1993); Humboldt Penguin (Scholten 1992 and personal communication). In addition, a pair-bond between (captive) male Yellow-backed Lories has been documented as lasting more than 14 years (Low 1977:134), although (unlike the other species) this occurred in the absence of birds of the opposite sex.

11

Galah (Rogers and McCulloch 1981); Common Gull (Riddiford 1995); Black-headed Gull (van Rhijn and Groothuis 1985, 1987); Great Cormorant (Fukuda 1992); Bicolored Antbird (Willis 1967, 1972); Black Swan (Braithwaite 1981); Ring-billed Gull (Kovacs and Ryder 1981); Western Gull (Hunt and Hunt 1977); Hooded Warbler (Niven 1993). See also Clarke (1982:71) for documentation of a pair-bond between captive male White-fronted Amazon Parrots that lasted for at least two years.

12

Bottlenose Dolphin (Wells 1991, 1995; Wells et al. 1987). Another possible example is male Cheetahs, who form life-long pair-bonds or “coalitions” with each other. Although many such individuals mate with females, and sexual activity specifically between male pair-members has only recently been verified in captivity (Ruiz-Miranda et al. 1998), it is likely that at least some paired males have few if any heterosexual contacts for significant portions of their lives (especially in view of the fact that opposite-sex mating opportunities for such males are often reduced [Caro 1994:252, 304]).

13

Similarities and differences between homosexual and heterosexual patterns are discussed in more detail in the following section “Sexual Virtuosos.”

14

Kleiman, D. G. (1977) “Monogamy in Mammals,” Quarterly Review of Biology 52:39-69; Clutton-Brock, T. G. (1989) “Mammalian Mating Systems,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 235:339-72. In most of these pair-forming mammals homosexuality has not been reported; however, same-sex activity does occur among Gibbons, Rufous-naped Tamarins, and Wolves, but not between animals that are bonded to each other was mates. In Gibbons, homosexual interactions are incestuous—between father and son(s). In an oblique sense, then, this pattern of homosexuality involves a sort of “monogamy,” in that sexual activity is not sought outside of the primary relationship or family unit. Interestingly, Gibbons do sometimes seek promiscuous copulations with partners other than their mate—but all such cases reported so far involve heterosexual, rather than homosexual, infidelities (see, for example, Palombit 1994a,b).

15

Gorilla (Robbins 1995:29, 30, 38); Hanuman Langur (Rajpurohit et al. 1995:292).

16

Of course, it has often been claimed that homosexuality in such contexts is strictly “situational” or “by default,” i.e., due to the absence of females. This is a great oversimplification, assuming as it does that males are necessarily “forced” into living in same-sex groups and engaging in homosexual activities; for further discussion and evidence against this interpretation, see chapter 5. Moreover, homosexual behavior “by default” is still homosexual behavior. If the “motivation” or desire of participants is to be factored in so as to distinguish “genuine” homosexuality, then the same must be done for opposite-sex interactions. The fact is that heterosexual behavior in many contexts is also “situational,” not actively sought out by one or both partners, or even overtly resisted, yet it still falls under the umbrella of “heterosexuality” (see chapters 4 and 5 for further discussion and exemplification).

17

Mountain Zebra (Rasa and Lloyd 1994:172); American Bison (Komers et al. 1992:197, 201).

18

Nilgiri Langur (Hohmann 1989:445-47); Ruff (van Rhijn 1991; Hogan-Warburg 1966); White-handed Gibbon (Edwards and Todd 1991); Red Fox (Macdonald 1980:137; Schantz 1984:200; Storm and Montgomery 1975:239).

19

For further examples of these various forms of sequential bisexuality, consult the index. Most, if not all, of these patterns are also attested in human bisexualities; for an example of seasonal bisexuality (one of the less well known patterns), see the description of a medieval Persian practice in which men had female partners in winter and male ones in the summer (Murray and Roscoe, Islamic Homosexualities, p. 139).

20

Kinsey, A. C., W. B. Pomeroy, and C. E. Martin (1948) Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, pp. 638—41 (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders).

21

Calculations are based on data in the following sources: Bonobo (Idani 1991:90-91 [tables 5—6]); Red Deer (Hall 1983:278 [table 2]); Bonnet Macaque (Sugiyama 1971:259-60 [tables 8-9]); Pig-tailed Macaque (Tokuda et al. 1968:288, 290 [tables 3,5]); Kob (Buechner and Schloeth 1965:219 [table 2]).

22

R. Wrangham, quoted in Bull, C. (1997) “Monkey Love,” The Advocate, June 10, 735:58. This is but one example of the often misleading statements about animal homosexuality that are perpetuated by both scientists and the popular press. See chapter 3 for further discussion.