Let's Talk About Sex: Are We Just Wild Animals? (VIDEO)

Hey, it's Cara Santa Maria. Last week, I invited everyone to join a scientific dialogue about sexuality for the month of November. The conversation quickly turned toward LGBT issues, with comments like these from Karen:

"Gay is, as is straight, so why sit and pick and delve and try to explain...acceptance is what is necessary."

It's interesting that as much as we want to talk about this from a scientific perspective only, you're right, these issues don't exist in a vacuum. Some strong social opinions are bound to come up. And while I completely agree with this comment, and think -- or hope -- that most of us do as well, I want to remind everyone that we aren't trying to moralize here. Let's look at the evidence, think about these issues in a scientifically-minded way, and see what conclusions we come up with.

I also want to be sure that when we talk about sexual preferences, we're not limiting them to a single issue. What about fetishes? Pedophilia? What about some women's tendencies to want a male partner to be taller than her? Or the men who gravitate to women who look just like their mothers? We don't have to limit this conversation. Nothing is off limits.

I also really enjoyed the conversation that was started about biological and evolutionary correlates of human sexuality. For example, Todd said:

"What humans call sex, is the misuse of the act of procreation. Take what you call sex out of your lives and learn to love and respect one another. Do you wonder why there is rape, abortion, disease, kidnapping, murders, divorce, etc. Listen, Learn."

Right, Todd. Because there's no rape or murder in the wild. Lions just sit around waiting for gazelles to die before they eat them, and ducks don't gang rape each other. However, I do like that this is opening up our sexuality conversation to ecology as a whole.

So this week, let's talk about how our tendencies are aligned with those of wild animals. How are we the same sexually? What sets us apart? We know that there are over 140 known species of gay animals. What about monogamy? Is that common in the wild? What about incest? Do our ape relatives have sex for pleasure or just procreation? Were they born that way, or is it "monkey see, monkey do?" (Yes, I know that apes aren't monkeys.)

What do you want to talk about? Hit me up on Facebook, Twitter, or leave your comments on my blog. Come on, talk nerdy to me.

See all Talk Nerdy to Me posts: www.huffingtonpost.com/news/talk-nerdy-to-me
Like Cara Santa Maria on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Cara-Santa-Maria
Follow Cara Santa Maria on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CaraSantaMaria

Comments

[Carrie Stamper]

10:13 PM on 11/18/2011

Cara...Ducks DO gang rape each other...lol. Have a farm, I've actually seen it.

[sunbeltvoter]

01:55 PM on 11/08/2011

"How are we the same sexually?" asked the writer of the "Talk Derty to Me" blog.

Cara: You're smart and cute. I have a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine. Together we have all the equipment necessary. Let us get together and ad lib some experiments to explore this subject. In the name of science, of course.

[ignacio sanabria]

01:46 PM on 11/08/2011

The two natural enemies of happiness: Sex and money.

[Gabriele Vaitkeviciute]

04:04 PM on 11/08/2011

I fail to grasp your point...

[Todd G Chavey]

12:30 PM on 11/21/2011

Went right over your head as a clueless, I mean soulless atheist.

[Endogenous Light Nexus]

09:04 PM on 11/16/2011

Yeah me too my experience has been that the more of either or both I have in my life, the happier I am.

[Todd G Chavey]

12:30 PM on 11/21/2011

shallow.

[ignacio sanabria]

01:19 PM on 11/08/2011

Animals just have sex. They do not even think about it!

[Gabriele Vaitkeviciute]

04:02 PM on 11/08/2011

You know humans are animals too?

[Todd G Chavey]

12:33 PM on 11/21/2011

So the female's only real function is to reproduce and care for its young? Sounds good to me!

[Joe Padilla]

02:39 AM on 11/12/2011

Obviously, you've never been around animals.They will kill for it.

[oldstudent10]

01:15 PM on 11/08/2011

147 species of gay animals? That is blatantly false and stupid on it's face. The species would be extinct or would be very soon if that were true. And please don't use the all-female Whiptail Lizasrd species, it is not "gay" when the ability to procrate is inherent in the specie that has no opposite sex. This article is laughable.

If one wanted to say that homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom then that would be verifiable and factual. Gay species would die out by the next generation through evolutionary processes.

[sunbeltvoter]

02:09 PM on 11/08/2011

Alpha males of many species sexually mount lower rivals to establish the pecking order. This is not done for sex but to preserve and reserve the females for the alpha male. If we assume it is sexual, then it is incorrect to call the alpha males gay. If anything they are only bisexual.

[Syllogizer]

02:31 PM on 11/08/2011

"Blatantly false and stupid on its face"? Actually, it is even worse than that. Not only is it obviously false, but it is almost as obvious that the language is crafted to encourage depravity rather than to encourage or participate in any scientific discussion.

Yes, by this point is is all too clear that Clara lied when she claimed to be interested in scientific discussion. For this is only one major instance of the trend she has already established, the trend of pretending to be interested in scientific discussion while actually doing the very opposite.

[pavementends42]

01:00 PM on 11/08/2011

Yes, we are animals. However, we are very unique animals, in that we are both so successful in our survival we've developed a very advanced intellect that allows us to think on issues like what it means to be part of a society and how people must function to live together in said society. So, now there are rules. Many are devised from practical considerations, but since the advent of contraception and sexual barriers that prevent the spread of STI's, those concerning sexual morality are no longer so relevant. So, we have a society that establishes these rules under the mantra "this is right from wrong," even if those rules (which prevented, earlier, the spread of syphilis and the like, and now, HIV) seem more-or-less arbitrary, though the traditions of moralizing our sexuality cling to life for the vast majority of people. Certainly in the US. I think people are too proud to admit we are animals, just with a very unique set of skills, and too deeply invested in a cultural norm that is all but obsolete to admit sex may not be such a bad thing after all. And the idea that sex is for procreation seems off base simply because only one out of myriad, innumerable acts we associate as sex--many not recognizable as such by so limiting a view--actually produces offspring. The need for sex and the desire to procreate are two separate longings, plainly if not simply.

[Cara Santa Maria]

04:24 PM on 11/08/2011

Beautifully stated.

[pavementends42]

02:41 PM on 11/25/2011

Thanks much!

[Todd G Chavey]

11:08 PM on 11/23/2011

Wrong.

[pavementends42]

02:04 PM on 11/25/2011

Well, how can I argue with that masterful argument? lol

[Michael West]

12:50 PM on 11/08/2011

(part 3)

And for those who maintain we need to get back to nature, to live in pact with nature, I wish to point out that the whole history of humankind has been that of using the artificial to outfox, subdue and civilize nature. We made spears as the artificial extension of fangs. We learned to weave flax and fibers to make clothing, and even the previous wearing of animals skins to ward off the cold was an artificial contrivance to improve on nature. Everything we have and everything we do has been an improvement on the harsh limitations of Mother Nature. Our laws, our countries, our customs, our schools, our hospitals, our taxes. Nearly ever moment of every day is spent countermanding the demands of a cold-hearted Mother Nature.

So if you find yourself condemning Tiger Woods for having sex with dozens of women, praise him for his restraint. For Mother Nature would have allowed and encouraged him – as the leader of the pack – to have sex with many thousands.. as long as he didn’t use a rubber.

[Michael West]

12:49 PM on 11/08/2011

Mother Nature (part 2)

Who are we but puny individuals? Who are we to say that Mother Nature is clumsy and primitive and that sharing and universal brotherhood are a much better way generally? For if universal brotherhood were indeed a better way in the long run surely Mother Nature would have discovered that somewhere in the last 3 billion years. But She has not. On the contrary She continues to arrange things, hormones and claws, so that we males continue to invigorate ourselves with blood before we expel semen.

But modern man has attempted to fool Mother Nature. He uses flowers and chocolate and jewelry instead of rape. He uses credit cards and sports cars instead of hand to hand combat or healthy little wars. And worst of all he uses condoms and other forms of birth control in order to have his jollies without issue, thereby short-circuiting totally Mother Nature’s ultimate purpose for creating him!

While Mother Nature intended us males to have sex with as many females as we can gain access to, She never ever intended males to shoot blanks. At least not to deliberately do so.

[Indra]

12:45 PM on 11/08/2011

Enjoy your karma honey!

[Paintio]

12:09 PM on 11/08/2011

"Nothing is off limits", but, everything is moderated.

[Paintio]

11:59 AM on 11/08/2011

OK here's the deal (or it could be). Gays carry culture. Straights make more gays.

Put that in your hooka, or up your flagpole, or stick it to your ceiling, or whatever.

That last bit was directed at other commenters, not the lovely and poised CSM.

[Syllogizer]

03:04 PM on 11/08/2011

No, that can't be "the deal". For those who actually put in the effort and time to understand 'culture' know that it is NOT true that "gays carry culture". That is a myth propagated by a loud minority of gays.

[Paintio]

05:49 PM on 11/08/2011

1. I'm not.

[Paintio]

05:54 PM on 11/08/2011

Damnit..........my fingers are acting up or something....here's the rest.

2. Humans are a relic of the biological imperative of grasses.
3. Gays need straights, and straights need gays. But that gets more complicated.
Why can't we just have it that gays 'trim packages' come with big buckets for 'culture.'

[she says stroke her ego]

11:55 AM on 11/08/2011

Who decides what is right or wrong?Is it God through his word the bible?Is it you?Who?Is it the goverment?Why are somethings right and other things wrong?It used to be against the law for a man and a woman to even live together and have a sexual relationship before getting married in this country?Not anymore.Interesting how people turn themselves into a god or their goverment or their president to decide what is right or wrong.

[Syllogizer]

03:06 PM on 11/08/2011

See the IEP entry on 'ethics' at http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/ for a better answer to your question, "who deciedes what is right or wrong".

[Oscar Serna]

11:26 AM on 11/08/2011

I like where you're going with this.
However, I'm skeptical of the proposal not to moralize.
No matter how we may try to analyze sex in all human diversity, there's always THIS emotional stumbling block. There'll always be intentional or not intentioal misunderstanding.
I have tried to discuss about sexuality but often ended up defending the fact that I'm not desperate or not a sex-obsessed person.
So I wouldn't be surprised if some commenters twist your statements and condemn you for condening this or that.

Wild animals act out their actions without self-awareness as we understand it. They simply do. Try tell a judge you're just acting on your desires! Not surprising, he/she will reply that excepting mental illness, you decided deliberately to act improperly. Can we tell animals the same? I don't think so.

So we will always moralize sexuality, whether we want to or not.

[pavementends42]

02:46 PM on 11/25/2011

But can't we make a distinction between being discriminating, carefully choosing what we do based on it's own merits and faults, without moralizing, that is, making a 'right v. wrong' argument out of it?

[brokenleoheart]

11:12 AM on 11/08/2011

with 7 billion people around, i don't really mind if sex is doing fulfilling its basic requirements.

[pavementends42]

02:47 PM on 11/25/2011

Yes, dear god, yes! We don't need people to procreate at such a break-neck pace!

[liberaltotalitarianism]

11:04 AM on 11/08/2011

Urination­, defecation and procreatio­n all happen within 5cm (approx.) of each other. Anything other than male-femal­e intercours­e, in a monogamous relation goes against nature, goes against society, is risk laden and should be avoided, at all costs, societal safety concerns.

You may choose do otherwise but the ills that will fall on you are your own doing.

[gloriaswanson43]

11:29 AM on 11/08/2011

Um, huh? Yes, urination, defacation ...and let's be honest here, sperm comes from the same tube as urine, happen near to each other.. in pretty much all species. My girl cats presents their butts for scratching and I get an eyefull each time. But diseases happen in male-female human sexual relations. Some partners enjoy anal sex, so there's one avenue of contamination. Women can end up with urinary tract infections from straight sex if they don't urinate afterwards. Boy does that make sex a fun experience to look forward to the next time. So much for cuddling. Sex itself is kind of gross, when you think of all the things we do to each other, fluid exchanges and what not. But so what. It's enjoyable. Rambling thoughts over for now. Pardon any spelling errors.

[Mendezio]

12:27 PM on 11/08/2011

Okay back to the Tabula Rasa theory, if homosexuality is found through experience or perception how could it not be natural?

Please give me an example of something perceivable or something you can experience which is not natural?

[jf12]

12:43 PM on 11/08/2011

Robo-sex?

[liberaltotalitarianism]

01:03 PM on 11/08/2011

If it wasn't meant to go there it should not be going there... How difficult is that to understand?