Talk:Animal sexual behaviour/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

NPOV Debate

I could not find any discussion as to why this article, or its sections, is considered NPOV. If someone wants the NPOV tag on this article, please explain the reasons here, and have ready information that conforms to Wikipedia guidelines (which includes NPOV, Verifiability, and No Original Research). kc62301

Definitely, this is not an article, it's a campaign! Listing sources is not a substitute for reasoned presentation of information. The title of this page is a self-fulfiller anyway... it's like me making a wikipedia article entitle "why you are wrong", telling you in what ways you are wrong, and then listing a load of techical papers without linking them to anything. It's a phucking joke! This is anthropomorphising animal behaviours and describing in ways that suit an agenda built on prejudices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.82.110 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC).87.112.82.110 12:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And the default belief that animals only have vanilla heterosexual acts for the purposes of procreation only isn't a POV bias? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Links to pages on humans

Someone added a link to the Polygyny page in the section on polygynous mating systems. The polygyny article is about humans. Should we link to articles on humans in the other sections (such as monogamy)? I think the mating systems sections could use some improvement, mostly by adding material to the polygynous and promiscuous mating systems. The lack of a good desccription of polygyny in animals is probably what motivated the link to the article on humans. kc62301

Monogamy, promiscuity.... they're human terms too. The only issue I'd have is if the term in humans implies something it doesnt in animals, and is therefore misleading. in which case I'd clarify that anyhow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried. The links I added in the sections on mating systems have been deleted/reverted twice. No big deal to me. I was just trying to balance out the links for whoever put the link into the polygyny section. This is an article on animal sexuality, so the links to human pages don't seem that important to me. Just wondering who deleted/reverted them and why. kc62301

The latest removal was mine. two reasons ultimately decided me on it:

1. The section intro links to them anyhow, and
2. Animal sexuality isn't just relevant because of humans (for example, the article on polygyny in humans wouldnt have a section header pointing to the one on animals either).

Basically, it was linked in that section already, so these turned out to be duplications. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The additional links were not originally my idea. Just trying to work with the collaborative process. kc62301

Yup, and nicely. A pleasure editing with you :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert of procreative viewpoint

A recent edit padjusted the article to present the subject in terms of a specific point of view, as procreative v. non-procreative sex. Changes included:

• Introduction rewritten to center around sex as procreation with other behaviors assumed secondary
• POV statements such as "Although the primary function of the sexual organs is to generate offspring, many animals exhibit other sexual behaviors such as masturbation and homosexuality, though not to an extent that would imperil the propagation of the species."
• Removal of intro notes on transgender and other diversity
• Mating systems and sexual behaviors confused (rape treated as a "system" since it is capable of giving offspring, for example)
• Non-heterosexual behaviors judged and presented as secondary to "heterosexual" mating behaviors (by creating separate sections, and by implying a split via inaccurate sentences such as "In recent decades, the study of animal sexuality has increased its focus on non-reproductive behaviors". In fact the latter is untrue. Sexuality and behavior as a whole has been studied, and new understandings emerged as a whole from it)

I've reverted this approach since I think it adds a viewpoint which the subject neither needs, nor warrants being split into. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the "viewpoint" that the primary function of animal sexuality is reproductive is any more of a bias than the viewpoint that the primary function of legs is walking, or that of the stomach is digestion. There are eons of evolution behind that, and the very notion of sex is defined with respect to the reproductive act. I know it's PC to say that all behaviors are of equal importance, but that's contrary to evolutionary history, as well as present reality, where most sexual acts in the animal kingdom are procreative. I wasn't trying promote a POV, but to structure the article logically. Why is the dominant form of sexuality not mentioned, but there's a subsection on necrophilia, a statistically negligible phenomenon? Is masturbation the most important form of sexuality? Why lead with that? I don't think it's POV to give more weight to what is by far the dominant behavior; on the contrary, the current article is skewed towards less representative behaviors, many of which are impossible to entire phyla. A Martian reading this article would never gather what most animals do with their sex organs. Djcastel 21:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between fact and opinion. It's not always an easy one to draw. None the less, a major source of bias in any article is to place a subject into one specific context, and view it from the viewpoint of that context only. Sometimes that can't be avoided, but in this article there is no need. We don't have to place it in any specific context. We can simply describe what animal sexuality covers, factually, without implying in structure or wording that it is "for" this or "because of" that or "directed towards" the other. Given how fast the field evolves and how wrong many prior assumptions about animals and ethology have been, its important not to fall into argument from ignorance. The same applies to animal cognition, intelligence or behavior in general. Its important to describe and avoid undue assumption.

Discussing reproductive behaviors is fine, that's not a problem and should be in the article, indeed. After all, that's much of what animal sexuality is about. But that doesn't mean we have to cast the article as a reproductive viewpoint, or assert that animal sexuality is "about" reproduction or that non-reproductive behaviors are "less" or "more". These are all opinions, personal viewpoints. We can discuss and cover animal sexuality in detail without needing to cast the article into arguing what it's "for". If there is material on significant reproductive or sexual behaviors thats missing, thats different, and factual, and should go in.

But thats separate from asserting that its all reproduction centered. Science is rapidly moving away from "animal sexuality is all about reproduction", or at the least, its a viewpoint that is no longer secure any more. So we shouldn't push that as "the viewpoint".

Hope that explains it a bit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mouse Picture

Shouldn't this picture be under Erotic Asphyxia since we can't be sure the mouse in the trap is dead? It could just be scarfing. Sick mice.

Is likely a fake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.241.29.196 (talk • contribs) .

It does not appear to be fake. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Stacy, I know the picture is a fan favorite. However, the original less blurred versions found online clearly look fake. Here's one I googled in haste (not the best I've seen), but it looks even less authentic than the even more blurred wikipedia image. necromouse.ytmnd.com Necromouse website] is dubious at best, IMO. Robotam 14:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it really needed here? Cleary it fits witht he article. But what I'm asking is it "good" to put one of the saddest images I've ever seen in this article? Noit 00:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The seems needlessly violent for an encyclopedia. I've not read many encyclopedias that display content this violent, even on subjects such as death.--IndigoAK200 13:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I also find the picture unnecessary for this article and I believe it should be removed. --Arny 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the picture and think it should stay. Certainly seems relevant to the article. 128.237.247.0 18:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oral sex

Citations are in need for this section of the entry. Without references, this section is completely useless.

The citations are as stated, in the section above. Its described that way to avoid unnecessary repetition. The academic and other sources it refers to, are listed in the same article one section up. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

POV/Biased article and "animal homosexuality"

I suggest the proponents of the homosexuality POV explain the following: In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality by stating: "Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."[1] Also, despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains: "Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."[2]ken 17:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

You have tagged the whole article as POV, while your concern vaguely addresses only one section, the homosexuality section. Next, you do not name a single thing wrong with this article. I believe the section on homosexuality is presented in a NPOV manner. Please be MUCH more specific in your criticisms, and tag only the appropriate sections, not the whole article. Thank you.--Andrew c 03:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The substance of this articles relies on the false notion of anthropomorphism and implies that sexual behavior among animals is a chosen preference or trait as opposed to conditioning of lack of suitable opposite sex mates. For example, the article claims that male penguins have been documented to mate for life and cites an example at a zoo. What were the conditions at the zoo that might have led to the male penguins forming bonds? Was there a shortage of female penguins? Were the male penguins rejected by other female penguins? Contrary to the assertion of the author, in one celebrated example at the Central Park Zoo, two so-called gay penguins 'broke-up' upon arrival of a female penguin from another zoo - ref http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html. So much for "gay" penguins and mating for life.

In the section on dolphins, the author selectively quotes Janet Mann from the SF Chronicle article - an obvious case of POV. Here is what the article actually stated:

"Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University who has studied same-sex behavior in dolphin calves, says their homosexuality "is about bond formation, not about being sexual for life." In the Wiki article, the "not about being sexual for life" has been cut out - wonder why?

"She said studies show that adult male dolphins form long-term alliances, sometimes in large groups. As adults, they cooperate to entice a single female and keep other males from her. Sometimes they share the female, or they may cooperate to help one male. "Male-male cooperation is extremely important," Mann said. The homosexual behavior of the young calves "could be practicing" for that later, crucial adult period, she added." Note that the Wiki article conveniently excluded explanation for the youthful homosexual behavior.

Also, a rather important aspect of the Chronicle article was missing that would offered some balance. "Scientists warn about drawing conclusions about humans. "For some people, what animals do is a yardstick of what is and isn't natural," Vasey said. "They make a leap from saying if it's natural, it's morally and ethically desirable." But he added: "Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn't be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don't take care of the elderly. I don't particularly think that should be a platform for closing down nursing homes."

In the paragraph on Necrophilia and is based on one observation, we are simply expected to believe that the duck knows that it's mate is dead and so had a desire to have sex with it. Should we also assume that the duck is now flying around looking for more corpses to have sex with?

In the Sex for Pleasure paragraph, we have a couple of logical fallacies on display and the author inappropriately cites Snopes as an authority on the issue. First, the author declares a straw-man statement, "It is a common urban myth that animals do not (as a rule) have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans (and perhaps dolphins and one or two species of primate) are the only species which do. This is sometimes formulated "animals mate only for reproduction." Of course nobody is propagating this urban myth other than the author of the article. The author also offers up two choices assuming no other choice exists. It's not about pleasure or reproduction, but the reproductive biology that causes the animal to seek out sex which in turn leads to reproduction. Again, the author attempts to anthropomorphize the animal into a person as though an animal would understand the connection of pleasurable sex with reproduction. 65.33.143.165 00:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have to disagree with your POV tag. Penguins and other birds are widely documented to engage in exclusively same-sex bonds, and the fact that such relations among other animals may not be a matter of "chosen preference" in no way diminishes their value as examples of variation in animal sexuality. The moralistic admonitions of the Chronicle article are out of place here, and as for your other comments, please feel free to edit the article as you see fit. I will however remove the POV tag as it is patently unjustified. Haiduc 00:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Before contributors proposing some kind of conspiracy theory edit more on the topic, they might like to notice the conclusion of that section. Here it is again:

"Same-sex sexual behavior should only be identified as a sexual orientation with caution. In humans the behavior is considered distinct from the orientation - many heterosexuals engage in same-sex behavior at times, and many homosexuals have heterosexual lifestyles. In animals this distinction is still being explored."

This is accurate, and neutral. It was added by myself, and I also added much of the other material. So much for some conspiracy of proponents mysteriously choosing material. The section refers clearly to "same sex sexual behavior" and does not attempt to draw analogy with human sexuality. Most of the above points are not an issue since animals are not being discussed as "sexual orientation" and there is no speculation made as to motive. In fact that is all a red herring and the only place such discussion exists is on this talk page. The article itself carefully restricts its content to sexual behaviors as documented, which animals have been observed to undertake for whatever motives and reasons that may be. Hopefully a careful re-read will allow this spurious debate of viewpoints that aren't actually in the article, to be put to bed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Observer Bias

The article mentions several times that observer bias may be the cause of such common animal behaviors being unknown. Would it not be safe to say that observer bias in today's world is just as strong but in the opposite direction, i.e. that the scientific world today actively and specifically tries to find things that go against traditional mores so as to discredit them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.122.208.51 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

For example, the focus on mounting may reflect prejudices that male homosexuality is primarily defined by anal sex and that female homosexuality is primarily defined by assumption of a symbolic male role? This could be a valid point, perhaps, and a variation on the "anthropomorphism" argument (essentially, that human interpretations of animal behaviour say more about humans' projection of their own issues onto animals than about the animals themselves). If you've got sources and you're prepared to cite them, by all means go to it! --7Kim 16:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oslo gay animal show draws crowds

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6066606.stm

Not sure whether this can be of use but it might have a couple of quotes. This page is quite controvertial enough without adding anything! 195.10.3.194 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bestiality

Bestiality being cross species sexual behavior between humans and animals, shouldn't there be a paragraph on it? (sunandshadow 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

• Maybe just a "see also". In fact, I'm gonna do it right now. Miltopia 11:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fill in the blank

"Sex between adults and sexually immature ___________" - so, what's the best word for this header in the article? It was "individuals", I changed it to "specimens" but I think there's a better word out there. Any ideas? Miltopia 14:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Sex between adults and juveniles" - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I don't know if that would go over well with people reading it. Is that a term for animals as well? Miltopia 14:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is used frequently. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that seems better than "individuals" so I went ahead and changed it. Miltopia 15:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rape and apparently coercive sex

I'm not experienced enough to edit and add links and citations into articles yet. I have a link that will fit this section if someone is willing to add it and write a bit of an content for it. http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm The first case of homosexual necrophilia in the mallard Anas platyrhynchos (Aves: Anatidae) Yes you saw that right. It is a scientific document and won an Ig Noble award (http://www.improb.com/). It is probably not enough to support the whole section, but worth a mention.--72.140.175.249 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Added to article - thanks. What's more relevant is the information that the author isnt just some guy having a laugh, he works for the Rotterdam Natural History Museum. That's more solid. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I do have to wonder about homosexual acts in a duck of the family "Anas" :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has tried to check the source of the alleged elephant-rhino rape. It doesn't seem to be based on facts. http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=5323 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.113.26 (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

removed fetish section

Original Section

Fetishist 3 years old tomcat.

Although not often reported, it appears animals, or primates at the least, are able to sexualize inanimate objects in a manner similar to human sexual fetishes.

Not only will an animal that has a habitual object for masturbation sometimes appear to sexualize that object, but in some cases primates have generalized that to sexualize kinds of objects in a class where no prior sexual connection exists -- similar to human fetishes.

Thus Gabriel, a chimpanzee at the Southwest National Primate Research Center, is said to have a shoe fetish (or possibly a leather fetish) according to caretaker Bert Barrera, and it is reported (probably referring to the same individual) that:

"A male chimpanzee raised in captivity developed a bit of a shoe fetish, masturbating obsessively by rubbing his caretaker's leather boot." mysanantonio.com drsusanblock.com.

The sexualization of objects or locations is also well recognized in the breeding world. So for example, stallions may often 'drop' (become sexually aroused) upon visiting a location where they have been allowed to have sex before, or upon seeing a stimulus previously associated with sexual activity such as an artificial vagina.

In this case however, the primary structure is Pavlovian conditioning, and the fetishistic association is due to a conditioned response (or association) formed with a distinctive 'reward'. Human fetishism can very also be traced back to similar or near-identical conditioning: likewise based upon the Pavlovian association between an erotic sensation or anticipation, and objects which become immediately associated with that activity. (See also: operant conditioning)

Washoe, a chimpanzee who has been taught American Sign Language, has been reported to frequently make the sign for "tickle me" to researchers. Although not a sexual act per se, tickling is none the less recognized as a fetish in some contexts. (See: Tickling fetish)

Rationale for removal

I have removed the "fetish" section and put it here. It seems to be unclear on what a fetish is, namely "an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression" (from Merriam Webster online here).

The page content discussed animals masturbating using objects (not fetishism), and conditioning (not fetishism). The use of the term seems to come from the zookeeper quote, but a zookeeper - while a reliable source for observations of animal sexual behaviours - is not a reliable source for analysis of this behaviour as fetishism.

The piece ends with a discussion of "tickling" which is non-sexual. The fact that some humans have this fetish says nothing. -- cmh^TC 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So put it under masturbation. It might not be a fetish, but then that is sort of a vague thing even in people.--Filll 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A fetish, in the paraphilic sense, is the sexualization of an inanimate object (a shoe, a piece of clothing, or similar). In that sense the above examples are parallels to human fetish, and accurately described. The sources also describe them as such. I think it's correct as was. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

I think that it should be changed back to "Non-Human Animal Sexuality". It is clearer and avoids confusion. 71.237.226.28 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)anonymous

Polygamy definition

Polygamy: One or more males have an exclusive relationship with one or more females.

There is a flaw in the definition: it also defines monogamy, since it can be reduced to "One male have an exclusive relationship with one female." because both "one or more" phrases can mean both "one" or "more". The more precise definition should be something like: "Polygamy: One male has an exclusive relationship with more females and/or one female has an exclusive relationship with more males." Such phrase is clumsy though, so it would be nice if someone would come up with a better solution. --Arny 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

How about simply "someone who has an exclusive relationship with multiple partners"? Dcoetzee 12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest "Polygamy is a mating system in which one animal forms concurrent pairbonds with multiple other animals"? --7Kim 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Anal Bison

No axe to grind here, but does anyone have an original reference for the statements about anal penetration by bison and the Okipa festival (for which Wiki article on Okipa suggests only male/female intercourse). Google reveals thousands of references, but they all seem to be quoting each other, with minor variations on the same words, and none looks anything like an original scientific reference. So i'm beginning to wonder if this is just a myth. Which would perhaps be a pity, but... --Wreader 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-Scientific POV Original Research

This article is a far cry from anything you'd read in a real biology text, and is riddled with anthropomorphizing and agenda-pushing. I note only some of the more obvious flaws.

• Little discussion of heterosexual coupling, by far the statistically dominant form of animal sexuality. This article used to be called "Homosexuality in animals". Despite the renaming, it still has the same narrow agenda of trying to show that this or that human sexual behavior is natural, hence the inordinate focus on behaviors that are of lesser biological and evolutionary consequence.
• Lack of contextualization for same-sex coupling behaviors. These behaviors differ in many substantial ways from the human construct "homosexuality", which is why the term is not ordinarily applied in scientific literature. Quotes are selected from controversial researchers to promote a specific view.
• "Rape" is not a meaningful construct outside of humans. What does it mean for an animal to give consent?
• "Fetish" is another anthropomorphism. How much scientific literature is there on this? Is this a widespread phenomenon or a curious oddity?
• Ditto for "Necrophilia". Does the duck really prefer a cadaver, or is this just mindless opportunistic coupling (same for examples above)? Oh, and by the way, an Ig Nobel prize is not a good thing.

I don't expect any of these things to change until we get some editors who are concerned more with biology than sexual politics. The fact that the opposite is the case is shown by the fact that the constructs of the latter are used throughout the article. Step one for improving the article is to look at a real biology textbook treatment of the subject, instead of cherry-picking primary sources to construct an argument. Djcastel 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think I have to part agree and part disagree with the above. If there was a comprehensive biology textbook, big enough to give animal sexuality its own chapter, then yes, there would be a lot of coverage of heterosexuality in that chapter. Since that is a large topic in its own right, probably there should be two articles: "animal sexuality (heterosexual)" and "animal sexuality (other aspects)". Or maybe an umbrella topic which links to both.
• I've changed the term rape as you noted, to reflect that it is "apparently under duress or coercion". The actions described are strong ones, more than just "persistent requesting", but the term "rape" may not be the right one to use even so.
• Necrophilia is the correct term for sexual acts to a dead body, contrasted with rape which is more to do with the state of mind of the parties (where its less clear what an animals "state of mind" is). I've therefore left this one, it seems the right term, given the description and writings on it.
• Likewise Ive left "fetish". A fetish does have a clinical definition, which is both used in sources and seems to be unambiguous -- attachment to and arousal by an object. The literature, though not often described in the academic literature, is unambiguously describing that, and the species is one close to humans.

Hope this helps clean some of these, at least. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all that Djcastel has said. The article has parts basically amounting to "Bacteria clearly masturbate, which can be sourced with this site here where you can see a video of a bacterium masturbating; and armadillos perform autofellatio, as evidenced by that site where one owner claims they do that, so it must be true". This is total, 100% agenda-driven original research. Oh, and necrophilia does mean you are attracted to corpses. Similarly, the fact that you've seen a toad "copulate" with a clump of earth does not mean it has a clump fetish.--Anonymous44 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

image

I am a hearty supporter the no-censorship policy. However, something seems wrong about keeping the picture of the boy and the dog. Consensual sex act images are one thing, but a dog humping a minor child? VanTucky 23:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that was in extremely bad taste and I removed it, probably in a rude fashion. And while not logged in (gasp!) --Ed Seneca

Serious question.

This article is presented as a general article about non-human animal sexual behaviour.

If animal homosexuality is only a small part of its subject matter, why is it marked as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies? If, as it seems, the article began life as an article specifically about homosexuality in animals, I can well understand that the marking is a legacy from that time. Given that it has clearly expanded far beyond that original narrow focus and there is a separate article covering homosexuality in animals, perhaps its connection to LGBT studies has become sufficiently attenuated that keeping this marker is no longer warranted. --7Kim 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that removing this marker would be a good idea, so we could fork off most of the LGBT-specific interests to the "Homosexuality in animals" article, and this could be a general biology article, like Plant sexuality, which branches out of Sexual reproduction. Then we could provide an overview of the evolution of sexual differentiation in animals, sexual morphology, mating, courtship, sexual selection, assortative mating, etc., and then link out to the more specialized articles in these areas. Djcastel 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I suspect that if the marker is removed the article just might be able to discuss all aspects of its professed subject rather than being shackled to our society's obsession with (justifying | excoriating) homosexuality. :-/ Seriously, though, now that someone has seconded the idea, I will remove the marker on 10 June unless someone offers a persuasive argument against doing so. --7Kim 08:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the contents do not match the title. "Sexual behavior" would probably be about sexual behavior in general. It's not clear what is a better title for this article, that covers the range of variations of behaviors. I've RFC'ed it to get input from others - see below. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sexual cannibalism?

Anyone think this should be briefly noted on this page in addition to having its own page? --BBrucker2 23:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that could use a brief summary section with a {{main}} link. Dcoetzee 04:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a credible source view that cannibalism is a sexual act? In spiders it's part of the sexual act ... does that count? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC: contents and title

Input is sought concerning the mismatch between the article's contents, and its title. The present contents neatly cover the range of animal sexual behaviors, which include almost every kind of sexual behavior known to human beings. That's a valuable article on its own. But really, the main article on animal sexual behavior should be one that gives primacy to "usual" mating behaviors in a general sense (for example rutt season, different mating systems, sexual displays, den/nest building, male-male competition to breed, copulatory behaviors, matters which are "sexual behaviors"), and puts the wider range of sexual behaviors which exist into a Summary style section leading to the full text here as a separate article.

Ideally then we'd have two articles: one covering sexual behavior (including a summary style section for "sexual variations" or whatever its called), and also a separate article on the latter, something like "variations of sexuality in animals". I'm not sure what titles, but you get the idea.

The reason for RFC is two concerns:

1. How do we showcase "ordinary" sexual-related behaviors without excessively marginalizing sexual behaviors that we might consider "less usual" or which aren't directly connected with breeding, and non-neutrally describing them as "less normal" (which they often aren't, for example masturbation)?
2. What are appropriate good titles for these two articles and for the new section?

The other side is, that the title "animal sexuality" could mean how animals "do" sex, akin to human sexuality, the range of ways sex is undertaken, rather than specifically about courtship or breeding rituals. Its hard to know which viewpoint is better for the subject.

I can see a huge NPOV problem in this area, over whether this or that non-heterosexual sexual behavior is presented as "normal" or "low weight", or how the articles or sections should be described. Probably a lot hinges on the article titles which the two are given. I'd like input before we accidentally end up ripping a focussed stable article apart by diving into major change in this area. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest using the Plant sexuality article as a starting point in terms of general structure, focusing on sexual mechanisms, morphology, and evolution. In other words, a dry biological article without thinly veiled anthropomorphisms. This is easier to do with plants than with animals, so I think a look at that article might help us toward the right direction. Djcastel 20:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I would like to at least remove the "non-human" from the title for now, renaming to "Animal sexual behavior". This is the only article on animals that pedantically specifies "non-human" in the title. Elsewhere, it is simply assumed from the context that humans are not specifically treated, though we can certainly link to the human sexuality article from this one. Djcastel 14:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)