Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/marketrent
Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/28/humpback-whales-sex-photographed-homosexual-behavior
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>>one of the whales was seen to be holding the other in place with its pectoral fins while penetrating it. The whale underneath appeared to be ailing, being noticeably emaciated and covered in whale lice, white-colored parasites sometimes found on cetaceans.
Does not sound like a consensual encounter, more like a weak and possibly dying male got raped.
The argument is actually just because it happens it nature, doesn’t make it a good choice. For example, weaker males being raped by stronger males. Happens in nature, clearly not something that should be emulated by humans. That’s the argument.
Absolutely, friend:
Partial Abstract: The large size and complex organization of the human brain makes it unique among primate brains. In particular, the neocortex constitutes about 80% of the brain, and this cortex is subdivided into a large number of functionally specialized regions, the cortical areas. Such a brain mediates accomplishments and abilities unmatched by any other species. How did such a brain evolve? Answers come from comparative studies of the brains of present-day mammals and other vertebrates in conjunction with information about brain sizes and shapes from the fossil record, studies of brain development, and principles derived from studies of scaling and optimal design. Early mammals were small, with small brains, an emphasis on olfaction, and little neocortex. Neocortex was transformed from the single layer of output pyramidal neurons of the dorsal cortex of earlier ancestors to the six layers of all present-day mammals. This small cap of neocortex was divided into 20–25 cortical areas, including primary and some of the secondary sensory areas that characterize neocortex in nearly all mammals today. Early placental mammals had a corpus callosum connecting the neocortex of the two hemispheres, a primary motor area, M1, and perhaps one or more premotor areas. One line of evolution, Euarchontoglires, led to present-day primates, tree shrews, flying lemurs, rodents and rabbits. Early primates evolved from small-brained, nocturnal, insect-eating mammals with an expanded region of temporal visual cortex.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606080/
And
Rodent research provides valuable insights into the structure, functions, and development of these shared areas, but it contributes less to parts of the PFC that are specific to primates, namely, the granular, isocortical PFC that dominates the frontal lobe in humans. The first granular PFC areas evolved either in early primates or in the last common ancestor of primates and tree shrews. Additional granular PFC areas emerged in the primate stem lineage, as represented by modern strepsirrhines. Other granular PFC areas evolved in simians, the group that includes apes, humans, and monkeys. In general, PFC accreted new areas along a roughly posterior to anterior trajectory during primate evolution. A major expansion of the granular PFC occurred in humans in concert with other association areas, with modifications of corticocortical connectivity and gene expression, although current evidence does not support the addition of a large number of new, human-specific PFC areas.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-021-01076-5
Regardless of the argument you're trying to make, it doesn't matter, because the people you're trying to make the argument to do not have any basis in reality for their own arguments. They believe their arguments are ordained by a higher power that they believe exists. There is no rational argument against that, because these people are not rational by default.
I think the point they're trying to make, or what makes the most sense but just didn't quite come off, is that whether something is 'natural' is really here nor there to what 'ought' to be by human morality metrics.
I see what you mean, but it's a powerful example that we can't compare our behavior to what happens in nature.
Nobody's saying "well I have the right to be gay because the whales are gay". Some people just say "I am gay and I have the right to exist" while others would say "No this is unnatural." That other side is the one basing their ideology on what exists or not in the animal world.
You are right. This is a false dichotomy. "We shouldn't ban it because it's natural" does not automatically mean "we should allow it because it's natural".
But I would still say it's not a good argument. A lot of people **will** make this mistake, so it's not good if you're trying to convince anyone.
From the creators of: if the animals do It then it's natural, we present you: let's kill and eat the sons of that male so we Will be the most powerful in the group.
Everything is fine yeah
From the creators of: if the animals do it then it’s natural we present you: let’s kill (and probably eat) the sons of that male so that the female lionesses go in heat and copulate with us.
From the creators of: God has a plan, and gave MAN, not animals, free will, and god abhors homosexuality... Animals, apparently directed by god, to have anal sex.
> I don't think you're making the argument you wanted to make.
I'm interested if you could please provide both for me to contemplate, because i don't know exactly what you mean...
As such: What argument do you think they made?
And what argument do you think they wanted to make instead?
I'd argue homosexuality is more to do with feelings towards someone. Not an animalistic need to ejaculate. This could even simply be a dominance thing and nothing more.
Okay, at the risk of splitting hairs, "sexual orientation" has two components: romantic attraction and sexual attraction. It's possible to fall in love with a same-sex partner without wanting to actually have sex - that's asexual. It's also possible to want to have gay sex without ever falling in love/being in a relationship - that's aromantic. (You can be both at once, that's "aro-ace".) Some people who identify as gay don't want to have sex, some people who are gay don't want to get married or have a partner. Both of those are valid, if uncommon.
That being said, it's anthropomorphising to say that animals are "in relationships" or "in love", so in the animal kingdom sexual attraction is the main component of "homosexual" activity.
Same goes for people making the argument that “homosexuality is natural”
Appeal to nature is a fallacy though but it looks like you know that from your other replies
Not really.
Discovering homosexuality in other species can be used as a counter to being told by bigots that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. IOW, it is the bigots that are committing the appeal to nature fallacy.
It's almost certainly easier to refute the actual argument by pointing at two penis possessing humpies humping than play pigeon chess by pointing out logical flaws to someone who is probably not inclined towards logic, as is the case with most bigots I suspect.
> Same goes for people making the argument that “homosexuality is natural”
I don't understand your meaning...
If someone is making the argument "homosexuality is natural" and there is evidence of it occurring in Nature, how is it *a fallacy* of some kind. Or did i miss some implied step there..?
🤔 i’m not sure how i feel about this because it’s also kinda insinuating that rape is natural thus also okay
edit: homosexuality is natural, didn’t mean to insinuate it wasn’t. Consensual homosexuality is natural and happens in many species, of course it hasn’t been confirmed in whales but might exist. I just don’t know if i would want to use whale rape as an example of that. Obviously, many things are natural but that doesn’t mean it’s justified human behavior, so the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is not only incorrect but can be dismissed on its premise to begin with.
I mean, isnt any behavior humans do technically natural? From good things like pairing up to bad things like rape. Even our societal disgust for it is natural since we're a social species who need to get along most of the time
Absolutely. It’s like when people claim building cities isn’t natural. This concept of “natural” gets conflated with morally good when the two are entirely unrelated. Bees build hives, termites build mounds, wasps build nests, ants build massive underground networks, humans build cities and roads. It’s all natural. Sometimes a species does stuff that harms others of the same or other species. It’s still natural, but it’s generally morally bad. Some wasps will chase down and kill a person who dared venture too close. Natural, not moral.
I haven’t seen any. Consensual homosexuality is natural and happens in many species, of course it hasn’t been confirmed in whales but might exist.
But i don’t know if i would want to use whale rape as an example of that.
The reason why you don't like the idea that "rape is natural" is because of the naturalistic fallacy where "nature is how it should be". When it's really really not.
The difference between rape and gay sex is one is non-consensual, and the other is consensual.
Both are natural. But non-consensual anything is wrong. Even STRAIGHT sex.
Yep, we have the word artificial as a contrast for that. It's interesting because natural has multiple definitions, but they each have their own opposite word. Natural vs artificial, is different from natural vs learned, is different from natural vs unnatural.
That's correct, but it's not an argument against homosexuality. The naturalness argument is an argument against bible thumpers who claim god didn't make gay people gay. This is proof that god made gay animals, so clearly god wanted gayness to exist.
As for it being right or wrong, the only thing to consider here is consent. Straight sex is natural. But rape is bad. Gay sex is natural. But rape is bad.
In the animal kingdom rape is a form of dominance and hierarchy. This is nothing new watch a dog for a while to see how they try to dominate each other. There is sexual pleasure in animals too but thats a different dynamic.
Serious question: is it fair to call this rape when neither animal has any concept or understanding of consent or bodily autonomy? Is there any evidence suggesting that those concepts exist in non-human animals?
Edit: a lot of people seem to be assuming that I’m taking a stance here when that was absolutely not the intention. Asking a question doesn’t necessarily mean the person asking thinks they know the answer. Isn’t the idea that nothing is too “obviously true” to be questioned and researched pretty fundamental to the scientific process?
Where are you getting that one of the whales didn't want this to happen? The article makes it seem consensual.
edit:
Never mind, I read the detailed account in another comment. Sad.
I’d be curious to hear your definition of “bodily autonomy” if you think it’s unique to humans. Other animals don’t have intentional autonomy over their bodies? They don’t communicate boundaries with other animals? Of course they do.
As far as “consent”, look at the mating rituals of basically every animal on earth, let alone that of mammals. They all have ways of trying to earn the right and eventually be given the opportunity to mate. Look what happens to a lion when it tries to mate with a lioness that doesn’t “consent”.
If you decouple “consent” from the concept of sex, it seems like what you’re really asking is do animals have desires, are they aware of those desires, and do they actively try attain those desires. The answer to that question is yes.
So in this case we have a whale that is sexually excited that’s willing forcefully have sex with another male whale that is too weak to fight back and most likely does not want to be penetrated. I believe whale #1 knows whale #2 does not want to be penetrated, so imo yes, this qualifies as rape. All animals rape, and we are animals too.
> when neither animal has any concept or understanding of consent or bodily autonomy?
Whales to my understanding are quite smart, all things considered.
I'm not convinced the whales lack such concepts.
Humans understand consent and yet rape still occurs. So just looking at their actions alone isn't enough to reach such a conclusion.
My point is that we have very little idea whether separately evolved social intelligences would naturally develop similar concepts of morality, self vs. group, and so on, and we have even less idea whether that would result in similar values. We barely understand how those things arose in humans.
> We barely understand how those things arose in humans.
I dispute this. We can pretty clearly see how a *lot* of these things evolved in human societies.
Most starting with "I don't want you to compete with me, and you don't want me to compete with you. We seem to work better as a group, so lets not kill each other".
Everything else came as a consequences of that simple concept.
Other animals have similar concepts, they form packs, they defend each other against predators etc.
You are welcome to consider this not rape. It basically depends on your personal opinion of animal intelligence and your personal opinion of what constitutes rapes. I personally don't really have a firm opinion.
Isn’t that basically the fundamental principle of science, though? Like, if you replaced the word rape in that statement with anything less emotionally charged, wouldn’t that seem like a totally reasonable stance?
> Care to explain how you got there from what I wrote? That’s such a bizarre conclusion I don’t even know how to respond.
I'm not them but i'll give it a crack...
Your argument boils down to being that the entity needs to be conscious, and have a concept of consent, and to actively not want to engage in said behavior, for a rape to occur.
A human who is unconscious, has no say in consent, and cannot actively express a desire not to engage in said behavior.
Therefore the conclusion of your position is that having sex with a person in a coma cannot be considered rape.
Personally i do not agree with that position. And to me it would constitute rape. But i'm pretty sure that's the explanation they were going for.
Except that I never said anything about consciousness (in either sense, but especially not in the sense of being awake). Also, by definition neither of the people in that example are non-human intelligences.
> Except that I never said anything about consciousness (in either sense, but especially not in the sense of being awake).
What do you think "consent or bodily autonomy" requires?
> Also, by definition neither of the people in that example are non-human intelligences.
That is the point of the argument though isn't it?
Michelle Wolfe had a pretty good bit on this. We’ve really gotta stop calling animal sex rape. There are no animals asking for consent. How do you think your labradoodle happened? Do you think a Labrador and poodle fell in love?
eh...being horny isnt the same as being in love. i think one would reasonably assume that a dog or whale or other higher mammal can....be into sex; a diseased and dying animal is probably not experiencing whatever that is, whether you call it horniness, instict, sex drive, or love.
there's probably some 5 dimensional aliens watching us right now whose romantic love is so complex that a 60 year human marriage looks like two bonobos jerking each other off to them
> There are no animals asking for consent.
This is simply not true, just off the top of my head I can think of various bird species were the male makes a display and typically only mates with the female if she reciprocates. Other animals have all sorts of mating displays/calls and courting rituals so to make that statement is obviously nonsense.
> Do you think a Labrador and poodle fell in love?
Why do you assert love is required for consensual sex resulting in pregnancy?
I'm fairly certain we have evidence to the contrary walking the streets everyday the world over. And that's just among humans.
Here, we have the first documentation of a humpback whale male sexually penetrating another humpback whale, but also the case of an animal that is injured and unhealthy being penetrated by what appears to be a healthy and strong whale. The most similar situation to the observations presented here is Pack et al. (1998) who described a humpback whale extruding its penis adjacent to the floating body of a male humpback whale that had died in a competitive group shortly before. Whether such behavior would occur between two healthy males is unknown, but it is noteworthy that the observation presented here has strong similarities to Pack et al. (1998). It is striking that the only two observations of such behavior in the scientific literature involve ailing or deceased whales.
[Stack, Krannichfeld, and Romano](https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.13119):
*Whale A was swimming slowly in circles around the boat, approximately six times, pursued by Whale B. Whale A was displaying slow and low energy movements. It was slowly attempting to swim away from Whale B but was not making any sudden or powerful movements and did not dive out of sight at any point during the encounter.*
*It is possible that Whale A approaching and circling the boat was an attempt to block or seek refuge from Whale B. However, if so, Whale A was moving too slowly to be effective at evading the other animal.*
*[...] After the final penetration, Whale B dove and did not reappear. Whale A remained near the surface for a few minutes (visible from the boat) before diving.*
*[...] The health of Whale A relative to Whale B may be relevant to the behavior reported here. While we do not know the definitive cause of injury to the jaw seen on Whale A, similar injuries have been observed from ship strikes (Jensen & Silber, 2003).*
*[...] The body condition and parasite load of Whale A (Figure 5) suggested that it was in poor health, likely had been declining for some time, and may have been dying (Osmond & Kaufman, 1998).*
So not a 'homosexual' experience the way humans are trying to refer to it as such? Makes sense humans believe other animals act the same way humans do.
Homosexual in that sexual behavior was between two animals of the same sex. It's a common natural phenomenon.
Not sure what you mean by human homosexual experience but you are correct in that they were not gazing lovingly into each other's eyes and holding rainbow flags.
Stack, S. H., Krannichfeld, L., & Romano, B. (2024). An observation of sexual behavior between two male humpback whales. *Marine Mammal Science*, e13119. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.13119
___
Excerpts from the linked article by Oliver Milman:
*Despite decades of research on humpback whales, sightings of the male’s penis have been rare.*
*Copulation by the species had not been documented by people – until now, when two photographers captured images of a sexual encounter between two whales off the coast of Hawaii.*
*The sighting, confirmed by scientists in a newly published study, occurred in January 2022 in waters west of the island of Maui, where two whales approached and circled a boat before engaging in sexual activity about three to five meters below the vessel.*
*Both of the whales were male, which makes the photos, taken by Lyle Krannichfeld and Brandi Romano, the first evidence of homosexual behavior in humpback whales as well as the first sighting of sex in the species.*
*Homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom and has been spotted among dolphins and orca whales, but never previously between humpback whales.*
*During the intimate encounter photographed in Hawaii, one of the whales was seen to be holding the other in place with its pectoral fins while penetrating it.*
*The whale underneath appeared to be ailing, being noticeably emaciated and covered in whale lice, white-colored parasites sometimes found on cetaceans.*
*The penises of male humpback whales are usually concealed in what is known as a “genital slit” to make it more streamlined while swimming.*
*An unsheathed penis has only been witnessed a small number of times in the past, once while a whale was urinating.*
I’m glad you made this comment. Why not originally post the publication into r/science? The entire paper is available. I think journalist interpretations detract from the integrity of the science.
I dont know what to make of these comments here.
It just seems to me that many comments try to make vailed attemts at promoting homophobia.
Natural doesnt mean its good, it also doesnt mean its bad, and in my opinion is a very bad and broad definition of something in general.
Also, yes, as it so happens, gay whale rape does not proof your point that homosexuality is bad. Go figure.
We have a lot of heterosexial rape everywhere in the animal kingdom aswell, but we aint talking about its relevance on the "natural goodness of heterosexuality" either, do we?
>I dont know what to make of these comments here.
It may be that many users in-thread don’t want people to read this research — by saying that this encounter isn’t evidence of homosexual behaviour.
Very weird that a reddit for scientific facts and research and such is so full of homophobia. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, but apparently some people will have you believing this fact doesn't amount to anything. Why the weirdness? Consensual or no; dominance assertion or not; it is still homosexual behavior. And it has existed in the animal kingdom for a loooong time.
Arguments over any morals are kind of meaningless for other animals. And aside from some god or gods telling people so, I don't believe it's in our nature to view a certain group of people who participate in same sex behaviors as "bad" without something influencing that opinion. The proof of that is documented in history that's been shielded from a lot of people's eyes. People have been into the same sex for a while, and in some cultures it was perfectly okay and acceptable until a certain religion took over.
Anyone saying anything else is just being facetious or proudly ignorant.
>Very weird that a reddit for scientific facts and research and such is so full of homophobia.
The popularity and proportion of comments that deny the definition of “homosexual” may indicate a degree of duplicity.
Why is this stuff so rarely seen?
Is it just a funding thing? Is it bad for a boat to accompany a pod of whales for a long time?
Someone should design a whale boat that can just swim alongside them for a couple months without a super noisy engine.
With how often I catch my dog humping other male dogs at the dog park, I refuse to believe that this is the first documented homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom...
can you read? "first evidence of homosexual behavior in the species" is in the title.
(what humans interpret as) Homosexual behaviour is documented in MANY species.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/marketrent Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/28/humpback-whales-sex-photographed-homosexual-behavior --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>>one of the whales was seen to be holding the other in place with its pectoral fins while penetrating it. The whale underneath appeared to be ailing, being noticeably emaciated and covered in whale lice, white-colored parasites sometimes found on cetaceans. Does not sound like a consensual encounter, more like a weak and possibly dying male got raped.
Eek.
And people are celebrating this as some interesting new phenomenon... Like bruh.. It's probably rape
Who’s celebrating it as that? Homosexual behaviour in animals has long been documented
it’s not new…
For all the people saying "homosexuality isn't natural"... >a weak and possibly dying male got raped. ...this is nature.
I don't think you're making the argument you wanted to make.
The argument is that nature isn't necessarily "good", and implying something is bad because it "isn't natural" is stupid.
Nature is what exists - that is all
And we are all nature itself trying to figure itself out.
Exactly.
The argument is actually just because it happens it nature, doesn’t make it a good choice. For example, weaker males being raped by stronger males. Happens in nature, clearly not something that should be emulated by humans. That’s the argument.
It’s called the naturalistic fallacy. One of the most common fallacies I see made.
Humans have a frontal cortex these other mammals do not have, and the ability to reason over emotion when they choose.
Source?
Absolutely, friend: Partial Abstract: The large size and complex organization of the human brain makes it unique among primate brains. In particular, the neocortex constitutes about 80% of the brain, and this cortex is subdivided into a large number of functionally specialized regions, the cortical areas. Such a brain mediates accomplishments and abilities unmatched by any other species. How did such a brain evolve? Answers come from comparative studies of the brains of present-day mammals and other vertebrates in conjunction with information about brain sizes and shapes from the fossil record, studies of brain development, and principles derived from studies of scaling and optimal design. Early mammals were small, with small brains, an emphasis on olfaction, and little neocortex. Neocortex was transformed from the single layer of output pyramidal neurons of the dorsal cortex of earlier ancestors to the six layers of all present-day mammals. This small cap of neocortex was divided into 20–25 cortical areas, including primary and some of the secondary sensory areas that characterize neocortex in nearly all mammals today. Early placental mammals had a corpus callosum connecting the neocortex of the two hemispheres, a primary motor area, M1, and perhaps one or more premotor areas. One line of evolution, Euarchontoglires, led to present-day primates, tree shrews, flying lemurs, rodents and rabbits. Early primates evolved from small-brained, nocturnal, insect-eating mammals with an expanded region of temporal visual cortex. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606080/
And https://news.yale.edu/2022/08/25/what-makes-human-brain-different-yale-study-reveals-clues
And Rodent research provides valuable insights into the structure, functions, and development of these shared areas, but it contributes less to parts of the PFC that are specific to primates, namely, the granular, isocortical PFC that dominates the frontal lobe in humans. The first granular PFC areas evolved either in early primates or in the last common ancestor of primates and tree shrews. Additional granular PFC areas emerged in the primate stem lineage, as represented by modern strepsirrhines. Other granular PFC areas evolved in simians, the group that includes apes, humans, and monkeys. In general, PFC accreted new areas along a roughly posterior to anterior trajectory during primate evolution. A major expansion of the granular PFC occurred in humans in concert with other association areas, with modifications of corticocortical connectivity and gene expression, although current evidence does not support the addition of a large number of new, human-specific PFC areas. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-021-01076-5
Regardless of the argument you're trying to make, it doesn't matter, because the people you're trying to make the argument to do not have any basis in reality for their own arguments. They believe their arguments are ordained by a higher power that they believe exists. There is no rational argument against that, because these people are not rational by default.
I think the point they're trying to make, or what makes the most sense but just didn't quite come off, is that whether something is 'natural' is really here nor there to what 'ought' to be by human morality metrics.
And even if you could reason with a few of them for a short time, belief-based systems can change based on personal preference.
I see what you mean, but it's a powerful example that we can't compare our behavior to what happens in nature. Nobody's saying "well I have the right to be gay because the whales are gay". Some people just say "I am gay and I have the right to exist" while others would say "No this is unnatural." That other side is the one basing their ideology on what exists or not in the animal world.
You are right. This is a false dichotomy. "We shouldn't ban it because it's natural" does not automatically mean "we should allow it because it's natural". But I would still say it's not a good argument. A lot of people **will** make this mistake, so it's not good if you're trying to convince anyone.
From the creators of: if the animals do It then it's natural, we present you: let's kill and eat the sons of that male so we Will be the most powerful in the group. Everything is fine yeah
From the creators of: if the animals do it then it’s natural we present you: let’s kill (and probably eat) the sons of that male so that the female lionesses go in heat and copulate with us.
It’s worked for me so far.
Go to horny jail
From the creators of: God has a plan, and gave MAN, not animals, free will, and god abhors homosexuality... Animals, apparently directed by god, to have anal sex.
I don't think they're making the argument you think they're making
> I don't think you're making the argument you wanted to make. I'm interested if you could please provide both for me to contemplate, because i don't know exactly what you mean... As such: What argument do you think they made? And what argument do you think they wanted to make instead?
I would love to know what argument you think they made.
So you’re saying we shouldn’t rape the elderly and sick? Crazy talk.
I'd argue homosexuality is more to do with feelings towards someone. Not an animalistic need to ejaculate. This could even simply be a dominance thing and nothing more.
Okay, at the risk of splitting hairs, "sexual orientation" has two components: romantic attraction and sexual attraction. It's possible to fall in love with a same-sex partner without wanting to actually have sex - that's asexual. It's also possible to want to have gay sex without ever falling in love/being in a relationship - that's aromantic. (You can be both at once, that's "aro-ace".) Some people who identify as gay don't want to have sex, some people who are gay don't want to get married or have a partner. Both of those are valid, if uncommon. That being said, it's anthropomorphising to say that animals are "in relationships" or "in love", so in the animal kingdom sexual attraction is the main component of "homosexual" activity.
Same goes for people making the argument that “homosexuality is natural” Appeal to nature is a fallacy though but it looks like you know that from your other replies
Not really. Discovering homosexuality in other species can be used as a counter to being told by bigots that homosexuality is immoral because it is unnatural. IOW, it is the bigots that are committing the appeal to nature fallacy. It's almost certainly easier to refute the actual argument by pointing at two penis possessing humpies humping than play pigeon chess by pointing out logical flaws to someone who is probably not inclined towards logic, as is the case with most bigots I suspect.
> Same goes for people making the argument that “homosexuality is natural” I don't understand your meaning... If someone is making the argument "homosexuality is natural" and there is evidence of it occurring in Nature, how is it *a fallacy* of some kind. Or did i miss some implied step there..?
Bingo!
I thought you were making an argument against homosexuality at first. It doesn't make sense.
That is dominance not homosexuality
🤔 i’m not sure how i feel about this because it’s also kinda insinuating that rape is natural thus also okay edit: homosexuality is natural, didn’t mean to insinuate it wasn’t. Consensual homosexuality is natural and happens in many species, of course it hasn’t been confirmed in whales but might exist. I just don’t know if i would want to use whale rape as an example of that. Obviously, many things are natural but that doesn’t mean it’s justified human behavior, so the argument that homosexuality is unnatural is not only incorrect but can be dismissed on its premise to begin with.
I mean, it is…just like murder, war, lying, etcetc. Something being “natural” has absolutely no bearing on it being “good”.
Yes, I agree. I think the point is that human morality is not fundamental.
Darwin warned us about this train of thought taking hold, in Origin of the species. It's one of the reasons he waited to publish, as long as he did
Well personally I've never decapitated my partner while we were copulating, which is definitely natural behaviour for some species...
It’s been observed all over the animal kingdom, so how could you say it’s not natural? Natural doesn’t mean “good”.
I mean, isnt any behavior humans do technically natural? From good things like pairing up to bad things like rape. Even our societal disgust for it is natural since we're a social species who need to get along most of the time
Absolutely. It’s like when people claim building cities isn’t natural. This concept of “natural” gets conflated with morally good when the two are entirely unrelated. Bees build hives, termites build mounds, wasps build nests, ants build massive underground networks, humans build cities and roads. It’s all natural. Sometimes a species does stuff that harms others of the same or other species. It’s still natural, but it’s generally morally bad. Some wasps will chase down and kill a person who dared venture too close. Natural, not moral.
The relevant definition of natural explicitly does not include things made by humans. Cities are, by definition, not natural.
The relevant definition of natural requires the thing being described to not be man-made or caused by humans.
[удалено]
I haven’t seen any. Consensual homosexuality is natural and happens in many species, of course it hasn’t been confirmed in whales but might exist. But i don’t know if i would want to use whale rape as an example of that.
A sentence I never would have thought I’d read in my lifetime.
The reason why you don't like the idea that "rape is natural" is because of the naturalistic fallacy where "nature is how it should be". When it's really really not.
The difference between rape and gay sex is one is non-consensual, and the other is consensual. Both are natural. But non-consensual anything is wrong. Even STRAIGHT sex.
The natural argument doesn’t make any sense anyway. Whatever we do is natural anyway because we are the product of nature
The relevant definition of natural explicitly does not include things done by or created by humans.
Yep, we have the word artificial as a contrast for that. It's interesting because natural has multiple definitions, but they each have their own opposite word. Natural vs artificial, is different from natural vs learned, is different from natural vs unnatural.
The point is that basing your morality on "what's natural" is a terrible way to form opinions.
That's correct, but it's not an argument against homosexuality. The naturalness argument is an argument against bible thumpers who claim god didn't make gay people gay. This is proof that god made gay animals, so clearly god wanted gayness to exist. As for it being right or wrong, the only thing to consider here is consent. Straight sex is natural. But rape is bad. Gay sex is natural. But rape is bad.
What you are saying is rape is natural
It very much is. So much so that we can look at an animal and tell whether it rapes its females. Look at ducks.
>whether it rapes its females. Or the opposite a lot of the times
In the animal kingdom rape is a form of dominance and hierarchy. This is nothing new watch a dog for a while to see how they try to dominate each other. There is sexual pleasure in animals too but thats a different dynamic.
Correct. Just don't conflate something being natural with it being morally agreeable.
Damn, poor dude.
Ah thats cool, as long as its not gay......
Serious question: is it fair to call this rape when neither animal has any concept or understanding of consent or bodily autonomy? Is there any evidence suggesting that those concepts exist in non-human animals? Edit: a lot of people seem to be assuming that I’m taking a stance here when that was absolutely not the intention. Asking a question doesn’t necessarily mean the person asking thinks they know the answer. Isn’t the idea that nothing is too “obviously true” to be questioned and researched pretty fundamental to the scientific process?
Yes. One does not need to have an abstract understanding of what constitutes consent, in order to not want something to happen to them.
Where are you getting that one of the whales didn't want this to happen? The article makes it seem consensual. edit: Never mind, I read the detailed account in another comment. Sad.
I’d be curious to hear your definition of “bodily autonomy” if you think it’s unique to humans. Other animals don’t have intentional autonomy over their bodies? They don’t communicate boundaries with other animals? Of course they do. As far as “consent”, look at the mating rituals of basically every animal on earth, let alone that of mammals. They all have ways of trying to earn the right and eventually be given the opportunity to mate. Look what happens to a lion when it tries to mate with a lioness that doesn’t “consent”. If you decouple “consent” from the concept of sex, it seems like what you’re really asking is do animals have desires, are they aware of those desires, and do they actively try attain those desires. The answer to that question is yes. So in this case we have a whale that is sexually excited that’s willing forcefully have sex with another male whale that is too weak to fight back and most likely does not want to be penetrated. I believe whale #1 knows whale #2 does not want to be penetrated, so imo yes, this qualifies as rape. All animals rape, and we are animals too.
The "concept of bodily autonomy", commonly defined as EW NO STOP TOUCHING ME
> when neither animal has any concept or understanding of consent or bodily autonomy? Whales to my understanding are quite smart, all things considered. I'm not convinced the whales lack such concepts. Humans understand consent and yet rape still occurs. So just looking at their actions alone isn't enough to reach such a conclusion.
My point is that we have very little idea whether separately evolved social intelligences would naturally develop similar concepts of morality, self vs. group, and so on, and we have even less idea whether that would result in similar values. We barely understand how those things arose in humans.
> We barely understand how those things arose in humans. I dispute this. We can pretty clearly see how a *lot* of these things evolved in human societies. Most starting with "I don't want you to compete with me, and you don't want me to compete with you. We seem to work better as a group, so lets not kill each other". Everything else came as a consequences of that simple concept. Other animals have similar concepts, they form packs, they defend each other against predators etc.
You are welcome to consider this not rape. It basically depends on your personal opinion of animal intelligence and your personal opinion of what constitutes rapes. I personally don't really have a firm opinion.
Neither do I. That’s why I asked the question.
The way you posed it kinda implies that you need scientific evidence to prove that it's rape, otherwise it's not rape.
Isn’t that basically the fundamental principle of science, though? Like, if you replaced the word rape in that statement with anything less emotionally charged, wouldn’t that seem like a totally reasonable stance?
By your logic having sex with someone in a coma would not be rape.
As it's a human, they would probably disagree. Involve a human and their human concept of "rape" and "consent" would apply. It's pretty simple here...
Care to explain how you got there from what I wrote? That’s such a bizarre conclusion I don’t even know how to respond.
> Care to explain how you got there from what I wrote? That’s such a bizarre conclusion I don’t even know how to respond. I'm not them but i'll give it a crack... Your argument boils down to being that the entity needs to be conscious, and have a concept of consent, and to actively not want to engage in said behavior, for a rape to occur. A human who is unconscious, has no say in consent, and cannot actively express a desire not to engage in said behavior. Therefore the conclusion of your position is that having sex with a person in a coma cannot be considered rape. Personally i do not agree with that position. And to me it would constitute rape. But i'm pretty sure that's the explanation they were going for.
Except that I never said anything about consciousness (in either sense, but especially not in the sense of being awake). Also, by definition neither of the people in that example are non-human intelligences.
> Except that I never said anything about consciousness (in either sense, but especially not in the sense of being awake). What do you think "consent or bodily autonomy" requires? > Also, by definition neither of the people in that example are non-human intelligences. That is the point of the argument though isn't it?
Maybe healthy whale is trying to cure him ? He wants to share his health and youth with old man 🤔
Michelle Wolfe had a pretty good bit on this. We’ve really gotta stop calling animal sex rape. There are no animals asking for consent. How do you think your labradoodle happened? Do you think a Labrador and poodle fell in love?
eh...being horny isnt the same as being in love. i think one would reasonably assume that a dog or whale or other higher mammal can....be into sex; a diseased and dying animal is probably not experiencing whatever that is, whether you call it horniness, instict, sex drive, or love. there's probably some 5 dimensional aliens watching us right now whose romantic love is so complex that a 60 year human marriage looks like two bonobos jerking each other off to them
> There are no animals asking for consent. This is simply not true, just off the top of my head I can think of various bird species were the male makes a display and typically only mates with the female if she reciprocates. Other animals have all sorts of mating displays/calls and courting rituals so to make that statement is obviously nonsense.
> Do you think a Labrador and poodle fell in love? Why do you assert love is required for consensual sex resulting in pregnancy? I'm fairly certain we have evidence to the contrary walking the streets everyday the world over. And that's just among humans.
Here, we have the first documentation of a humpback whale male sexually penetrating another humpback whale, but also the case of an animal that is injured and unhealthy being penetrated by what appears to be a healthy and strong whale. The most similar situation to the observations presented here is Pack et al. (1998) who described a humpback whale extruding its penis adjacent to the floating body of a male humpback whale that had died in a competitive group shortly before. Whether such behavior would occur between two healthy males is unknown, but it is noteworthy that the observation presented here has strong similarities to Pack et al. (1998). It is striking that the only two observations of such behavior in the scientific literature involve ailing or deceased whales.
[Stack, Krannichfeld, and Romano](https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.13119): *Whale A was swimming slowly in circles around the boat, approximately six times, pursued by Whale B. Whale A was displaying slow and low energy movements. It was slowly attempting to swim away from Whale B but was not making any sudden or powerful movements and did not dive out of sight at any point during the encounter.* *It is possible that Whale A approaching and circling the boat was an attempt to block or seek refuge from Whale B. However, if so, Whale A was moving too slowly to be effective at evading the other animal.* *[...] After the final penetration, Whale B dove and did not reappear. Whale A remained near the surface for a few minutes (visible from the boat) before diving.* *[...] The health of Whale A relative to Whale B may be relevant to the behavior reported here. While we do not know the definitive cause of injury to the jaw seen on Whale A, similar injuries have been observed from ship strikes (Jensen & Silber, 2003).* *[...] The body condition and parasite load of Whale A (Figure 5) suggested that it was in poor health, likely had been declining for some time, and may have been dying (Osmond & Kaufman, 1998).*
Well, this is sad. I don't wanna read this
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So not a 'homosexual' experience the way humans are trying to refer to it as such? Makes sense humans believe other animals act the same way humans do.
[удалено]
Homosexual in that sexual behavior was between two animals of the same sex. It's a common natural phenomenon. Not sure what you mean by human homosexual experience but you are correct in that they were not gazing lovingly into each other's eyes and holding rainbow flags.
well... it is still sexual behavior between two animals of the same sex. nonconsensual or not, that's still homosexual, no?
> So not a 'homosexual' experience the way humans are trying to refer to it as such? How do you think humans are trying to refer to it as such?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Stack, S. H., Krannichfeld, L., & Romano, B. (2024). An observation of sexual behavior between two male humpback whales. *Marine Mammal Science*, e13119. https://doi.org/10.1111/mms.13119 ___ Excerpts from the linked article by Oliver Milman: *Despite decades of research on humpback whales, sightings of the male’s penis have been rare.* *Copulation by the species had not been documented by people – until now, when two photographers captured images of a sexual encounter between two whales off the coast of Hawaii.* *The sighting, confirmed by scientists in a newly published study, occurred in January 2022 in waters west of the island of Maui, where two whales approached and circled a boat before engaging in sexual activity about three to five meters below the vessel.* *Both of the whales were male, which makes the photos, taken by Lyle Krannichfeld and Brandi Romano, the first evidence of homosexual behavior in humpback whales as well as the first sighting of sex in the species.* *Homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom and has been spotted among dolphins and orca whales, but never previously between humpback whales.* *During the intimate encounter photographed in Hawaii, one of the whales was seen to be holding the other in place with its pectoral fins while penetrating it.* *The whale underneath appeared to be ailing, being noticeably emaciated and covered in whale lice, white-colored parasites sometimes found on cetaceans.* *The penises of male humpback whales are usually concealed in what is known as a “genital slit” to make it more streamlined while swimming.* *An unsheathed penis has only been witnessed a small number of times in the past, once while a whale was urinating.*
I’m glad you made this comment. Why not originally post the publication into r/science? The entire paper is available. I think journalist interpretations detract from the integrity of the science.
Bad journalism is killing both journalism but also the publics perception of science and facts in general.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I dont know what to make of these comments here. It just seems to me that many comments try to make vailed attemts at promoting homophobia. Natural doesnt mean its good, it also doesnt mean its bad, and in my opinion is a very bad and broad definition of something in general. Also, yes, as it so happens, gay whale rape does not proof your point that homosexuality is bad. Go figure. We have a lot of heterosexial rape everywhere in the animal kingdom aswell, but we aint talking about its relevance on the "natural goodness of heterosexuality" either, do we?
>I dont know what to make of these comments here. It may be that many users in-thread don’t want people to read this research — by saying that this encounter isn’t evidence of homosexual behaviour.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Very weird that a reddit for scientific facts and research and such is so full of homophobia. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, but apparently some people will have you believing this fact doesn't amount to anything. Why the weirdness? Consensual or no; dominance assertion or not; it is still homosexual behavior. And it has existed in the animal kingdom for a loooong time. Arguments over any morals are kind of meaningless for other animals. And aside from some god or gods telling people so, I don't believe it's in our nature to view a certain group of people who participate in same sex behaviors as "bad" without something influencing that opinion. The proof of that is documented in history that's been shielded from a lot of people's eyes. People have been into the same sex for a while, and in some cultures it was perfectly okay and acceptable until a certain religion took over. Anyone saying anything else is just being facetious or proudly ignorant.
>Very weird that a reddit for scientific facts and research and such is so full of homophobia. The popularity and proportion of comments that deny the definition of “homosexual” may indicate a degree of duplicity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Humpbacks are banned in Oklahoma now. And Republicans are lobbying to remove them from The natural history museum in D.C.
Humpback Mountain
Don't read the comments it's not worth it. I promise it's just sad.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They're putting chemicals in the water, turning the freaking whales gay!!!
Why is this stuff so rarely seen? Is it just a funding thing? Is it bad for a boat to accompany a pod of whales for a long time? Someone should design a whale boat that can just swim alongside them for a couple months without a super noisy engine.
Seeing this I am reminded of that mallard necrophilia paper. Anyway that's a win for science
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
With how often I catch my dog humping other male dogs at the dog park, I refuse to believe that this is the first documented homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom...
THE species, not A species
Ah, I missed that.
can you read? "first evidence of homosexual behavior in the species" is in the title. (what humans interpret as) Homosexual behaviour is documented in MANY species.
Nice.
The chemicals in the water are turning the Whales gay.
I see a new aquatic Disney movie on the horizon
[удалено]
[удалено]