A majority of male monkeys swing both ways, a study published in leading science journal Nature has found.
Seventy-two percent of male rhesus macaques engaged in same-sex sexual behaviour, according to the study of 236 individuals living within a colony of 1,700 on the tropical island of Cayo Santiago in Puerto Rico.
In fact, more individual monkeys engaged in same-sex behaviour than different-sex behaviour, the researchers found, with just 46% observed mounting a female during the three-year study period.
The study from a team at Imperial College London further found that same-sex behaviour was 6.4% heritable and that it began among males when they turned three-and-a-half. Females, on the other hand, rarely engaged in same-sex behaviour.
Unexpectedly, the researchers found that those individuals who engaged in same-sex behaviour were more likely to reproduce, something they suggested was due to such males assisting one another more in conflicts. They observed that this fitness benefit is in contrast to humans, where same-sex behaviour comes with a ‘fitness cost’, i.e., is associated with lower likelihood of reproduction.
Despite the apparent preference among macaques for same-sex behaviour, the researchers determined – by extrapolation from their data – that just one of the 236 individuals was “likely” to exclusively engage in same-sex behaviour.
With these kinds of studies it’s always tempting to look for lessons for human relationships. Indeed, the researchers themselves, while warning of the difficulties and problems in such an enterprise, nonetheless attempt to do so.
Noting that macaques are the “closest model species in medical research”, they suggest that knowing how common same-sex behaviour is in macaques may help further the cause of gay equality. “Our results may contribute to changing the opinions of those whose prejudice remains regrettably built on the belief that same-sex behaviour is rare or deviant,” they write. A section in their accompanying Conversation article is titled ‘Learning from primates’. In a press release the authors suggest that their findings challenge the practices of countries which still ban homosexual relationships.
But the case for recognising homosexual relationships has nothing whatsoever to do with the behaviour of monkeys.
Macaques are not humans and are separated from humans by millions of years of evolution. Their social structure and behaviour are very different from ours, just as they also differ from other primates and animals.
It is certainly fascinating to learn that male macaques freely make use of sexual contact in their social interactions; that from the age of three-and-a-half (equivalent to around 10 years in humans) they often mount and are mounted by their pals and elders to bond with them; and that those which do this are more likely to have offspring. It’s also intriguing to know that the females don’t tend to go in for it.
But it’s hard to see any lessons here that humans would want to apply to ourselves. What, after all, would such lessons be? That all friendships and workplace relationships should be sexualised, starting in primary school? That gay men should end their aversion to women and make sure they have babies with them from time to time? These don’t sound like notions that any sensible person would be on board with.
In macaque society, male relationships are, we learn, routinely sexualised, with male companions often bonding via sexual interaction. That isn’t the case in human society, where most relationships are non-sexual, by mutual agreement! Macaques, which spontaneously mount each other while hanging out, would be totally befuddled by MeToo.
Humans are not macaques. Human sexual relationships typically involve pairing up and most expect exclusivity. The concepts of fidelity and infidelity are highly salient in human relationships in a way that clearly isn’t the case among macaques.
This is because human sexual norms are based on the needs and desires of humans, not monkeys. This includes an understanding of what is likely to cause harm, especially to women and children, and the importance of consent – which is why we protect children from being sexualised as well as regulate sexual contact between adults. We are also mindful of the need of human children to be raised in a stable family environment and by their own mother and father where possible – which is the main reason we institute marriage and discourage divorce. What humans need from sexual and family relationships is not the same as what monkeys need.
The worry with studies like these – worthy as they are in themselves – is that they will be used by activists to push woke agendas, including sex-positive and ‘queer theory’ ideas on children. ‘Gay penguins’ are frequently used in this way, for example. The authors themselves point in this direction by arguing their findings imply countries shouldn’t ban homosexuality, though do not go any further. But if we’re going down this road of getting ‘morals from monkeys’, why should we stop there? Why should our ‘learning from primates’ not also include that humans should sexualise all their relationships, from age 10 upwards? The worry is that some people will read a study like this and take something like that away from it. There is, after all, a well-resourced global movement pushing the sex-positive agenda on ever-younger children, with the WHO even issuing guidance on ‘sexuality for infants‘. You can just see the fact that 72% of macaques are bisexual slipping into some sex education lesson somewhere. And the authors hardly help by drawing their own moral lessons.
But – and this should go without saying – we don’t recognise gay relationships because macaques are 72% bisexual, or anything else to do with monkeys. We do so because of considerations specific to humans.
So in case anyone is tempted to suggest that macaques show us the free-loving way to be, let us be completely clear. Monkeys don’t show us how to be human.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Amazing ! If only we had known these things before this Crucial Survey ! Life could have been so much different , we are so far up our own arses now ( if you’ll pardon the pun) that I wonder if it would be better if we did die out due to chasing the chocolate starfish instead of the bonus hole !
Couldn’t resist. Not sorry!
https://todayleaked.com/why-is-huw-edwards-trending-on-twitter-snapchat-photo-leaves-internet-scandalized-amid-bbc-presenter-scandal/
Oh, I say.
“chocolate starfish instead of the bonus hole !
”
Oh, I say.
I vote Freddy for giving sex ed in schools. He’s quite the wordsmith and has the lingo nailed! Who could fail to enjoy such imagery?
Go on. Behave like macaques. It’ll be fine.
And here’s me thinking it was only the bonobo that was into this sort of behaviour. I consider myself enlightened! lol
Many mammals have private lives that make those of BBC presenters look tame by comparison – dolphins really are sleazy, for example. However, they’re not ‘gay’, even if they have lots of same-sex action.
Firstly it’s one of my bug bears when animal studies are extrapolated to imply anything whatsoever to do with humans ( like that mouse city article the other day ) but also my heart sinks whenever I see ‘ICL’. They’re like the QAnon of the academic world, so ridiculous is the bilge that we’re used to seeing them produce. I mean, of course this stuff will get published straightaway ( and not get retracted ), unlike quality and meaningful work which has significant impact, such as the McCullough et al Lancet paper about the autopsies proving the death jabs are just that. I just assumed monkeys did this because they couldn’t get a girlfriend anyway, but if the majority were that way inclined I guess they’d eventually die out. Same as the human race really.
Ref mouse city, there was no mention of the Douglas Adams report on the vastly hyperintelligent pandimensional beings that are the white mice that gave us the answer of 42, for the meaning of life. Pour me another pangalactic gargle blaster. no ice.
Let’s face it, monkeys just don’t care. They’ll have sex with a scooter if they could. Their sex drive is legendary, just ask Tarzan…
Gives a new meaning to the line “I’m the King of the Swingers” from the Jungle Book song.
LOL
Yeah, and worms are asexual.
So what?
I’m actually self-identifying as a Gibbon for the entirety of this thread, and I don’t want any smartarse remarks suggesting I’m ‘out of my tree’..
Would that be one of the Funky ones?
Here, have a 
But of course.. is there another sort..
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/under-starmer-or-sunak-things-can-only-get-worse/
An OT Dump.
Simon Dolan failing to understand that our politicians are now simply order takers and their orders are to destroy the country socially, politically and economically. Very naiive.
Specifically what part of this is naive and fails to recognise that they are “order takers”? If you mean the bit where he talks about them wanting to get elected, I sort of agree as I’m not sure they care much – certainly the top people on both sides seem to have more of an eye on their next job with the WEF, EU, UN or whatever.
But his sentiments about the wrongness of what’s being done are correct.
I suppose anyone who has used the “homosexual behaviour is aberrant – you don’t seen animals doing it” has kind of walked into this one. I would answer this though:
But agree with points BTL that applying this to humans is a bit daft to say the least. If none had been “gay” the authors may not have been so keen to draw conclusions and would have said “ah well humans are different”.
Some points: one, are these people actually telling us to behave like a more primitive species of primate? Two, are they hence suggesting that we should be violent, careless, tribal, unthinking? And three – the standout point – why do they fail to emphasise the extreme rarity of exclusively homosexual behaviour (1 monkey in 236)? We know why, of course, because, following their own logic, it suggests that it might indeed be regarded as an abnormality.
Now compare the way that foolish fellow Tom Holland, with his latest rubbish about ancient Rome, is saying that antique sexuality was vastly different, that it didn’t matter with whom or with what a person “went to bed” etc. But only thirty years ago, in “Courtesans and Fishcakes” among other publications, another author – whose name escapes me – pointed out that whilst casual buggery was not uncommon in ancient Greece, those who could not or would not consort with women at all were derided and mocked. From these two examples, we can see that today accounts of the past are being twisted to accommodate either extreme “liberalism” or its ugly “woke” offspring.
Surely the truth, emerging both from this study of monkeys and earlier studies of ancient society, is this: that where erotic behaviours are concerned there has always been a degree of flexibility among humans – think of old style public schools and prisons; and the marker is not what a person is willing or capable of doing but that of which they are incapable. And anything which blocks a vital biological and species function, such as reproduction, is ipso facto an abnormality.
If we’re going to draw conclusions from nature studies, this strikes me as the most germane and powerful to emerge from this peep into the lives of macaques. But nobody in public life dares even to hint at such a possibility. Perhaps the scientists have put out this nonsense about the splendours of bisexuality to cover themselves against “cancellation” for the other, much more important findings of their research.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if you cold measure the amount of gay people that existed throughout history, starting right from before records began, and obviously taking into account relation to population size? I wonder if humans are gay due to our highly evolved brains. Of course it can’t possibly be called ”natural” in the context of reproduction because being homosexual is hardly conducive to the survival of the human species, which is why they will always remain a minority, but they are sizable minority.
I’m also wondering if there are more gay people now just because it’s more socially acceptable or are there just literally more gay people now anyway? However, if Islam didn’t condemn homosexuality would there be more gay Muslims? It’s a very interesting topic once you scratch the surface. I don’t even know if there were gay cave men and women, but that’s something we’re never going to know for sure with no records. Any way you look at it having a highly evolved brain is a double-edged sword.
I’m convinced that there is a good deal of truth in what you say, which – if I may extrapolate – seems to suggest that the relations between sexuality and consciousness are not as simple as we’ve all been taught to think; that erotic desires and behaviours can themselves be affected by the wider condition of the consciousness and that if this is diseased or oppressed in some way, sexual processes can be adversely affected.
I’m absolutely not convinced that a majority of humans have highly evolved brains.
The question is really immaterial. Homosexual behaviour is perfectly normal for humans and has been documented for millennia. It’s ubiquitious in Xenophon’s Anabasis, Thucydides mentions it normal occurence in Athenian society and at his time, Caesar’s enemys mocked him as someone who Was a woman for men and a man for women. Different cultures have and had different appreciations of it: The monotheistic religions from the near and middle east (Islam, Christanity and Judasim) reject it as against the will of God. The ancient Greeks considered it perfectly normal, explicitly including men having sex with boys. The Romans regarded it as normal but somewhat shameful for Men who were women to other men. Historic Icelandic society (presumably extending to other Germanic peoples) strongly disapproved of it as unmanly and dishonourable conduct. Germanic and Christian traditions caused it to be strongly disapproved of in Europe from the end of antiquity until the end of the 20th century. The postmodern, hedonistc consumer society of today celebrates it in the same way it celebrates all (lucrative) ways of achieving instant physical gratification of some animal desire.
But aren’t you ignoring the point about exclusively homosexual behaviour? How acceptable has that been? Has it ever been enshrined as preferable? Or preferable for the majority? Or the norm? Would societies which managed any such tricks survive?
The point, I repeat, about ancient Greece – as some say with modern Afghanistan – is that an overarching commitment to heterosexuality for most people, most of the time confines alternative practice to some people with some others at certain moments of their lives.
No society before ours has pretended that it is just a matter of “choice”; or that there is no difference between the sexualities when it comes to the foundations of family life. And no society before ours has pretended that the two forms of expression are each as central to humanity or its survival as the other.
The traditional variables, I put it to you, are merely forms of permission and / or toleration, and these were always limited by social factors. Even the monotheistic religions in deciding heavily against even that, in practice left wide areas of latitude through wilful ignorance.
And had the whole business been viewed as purely abstract and symmetrical, such that the choice between which sexuality should prevail or predominate would appear as arbitrary, then I put it to you that the society indulging in such anti-natural nonsense would have sunk into the desert sands.
Yes, there has always been homosexuality, but there has always been cancer, madness, genetic disease. To say, therefore, that these are “normal” in the way that health, sanity and heterosexuality are normal is no more than a hackneyed abuse of language.
No society before ours has pretended that it is just a matter of “choice”
It’s a matter of choice for Xenophon’s Greeks fighting their way back into Greece from Persia: After conquering another city, some of the men of the army prefer taking female prisoners, some prefer male prisoners and some take both. The difference is that it’s not regarded as some form of hallowed, innate identiy which is to be celebrated as the ultimate meaning of life. The warriors Xenophon describes are, first and foremost, warriors and expected to have some very traditional (from our viewpoint) male qualities like courage, strength and a readiness to sacrifice themselves to accomplish some higher end if need be. They have little in common with contemporary effiminates wearing high heels and painting their nails.
What I’m trying to get at is that (to the best of my knowledge) no society before ours has ever openly chosen sex as the golden calf to dance around.
I read it decades ago – in English translation -but remember Xenophon regarding the queers with mild contempt.
Didn’t seem that way to me. The one episode I remember was one of the men being slightly mocked because he was so much infatuated with a certain boy, ie, not because his sex partner of choice was a boy but because he overvalued him so much. But I read it only once and may well have missed something.
A one-off observation of 236 monkeys from a colony of 1700 (Why were 86% of the colony excluded? Desired phenomon not showing up?) means absolutely nothing for monkeys, let alone humans. That’s just another case of someone having been provided with a budget to go and find something the people the budget came from wanted to be found.
Well, it does certainly put the lie to the tired old zombie canard that homosexuality/bisexuality is somehow “unnatural” and therefore wrong, because reasons. And it does dovetail nicely with what we already know about bonobos, as well as various ancient and so-called “primitive” human cultures too. The famous book “Sex at Dawn” by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, as well as “The Bonobo Way” by Dr. Susan Block, certainly come to mind.
And while of course we should not read too much into studies like these, they still provide important information nonetheless. And for those who think it is somehow a million miles away from humans, especially modern humans, please feel free to take a look at the Kinsey Reports or the Wolfenden Report. Or any number of studies done after that as well.
To all the downvoters, you know it’s true. Methinks they doth protest too much, lol.
Blindness and deafness are natural.
Talk about missing the point, lol.
Anyone else fed up with ‘experts’ & ‘scientists’?
A hole is a goal to a non centiant creature!
!
It’s not by intention it’s a safe guard to ensure the procreation of the species. I’m sure humans are intelligent enough to know males can not give birth to young and no matter how much you shag the male he never will!??? …and right there is a problematic box of frogs
True, humans are not monkeys. We are in fact the only species dumb enough to do the following:
1) Pay to live on the planet on which they were born.
2) Believe that if they work themselves into an early grave to make the rich richer, they too will become rich via the “trickle down” theory.
3) Turn billions of barrels of dead dinosaurs into…microliters of dopamine.
4) Wage large-scale wars for fun and profit, and also access to #3 as well.
5) Believe that infinite growth on a finite world is somehow possible or desirable.
6) Destroy the Earth in pursuit of the above.
“Homo sapiens” is a misnomer, as we are not very sapient after all, it seems.
If you believe that oil is made out of dead dinosaurs you’re operating on an intellectual monkey level.
Perhaps the abiogenic petroleum hypothesis is correct after all. I am on the fence about that myself. In fact, I was waiting for someone to say that.
I can believe that homosexual men have the sexual self-control of monkeys.
Reminds me of one of my bosses back in the 80s who went on holiday to Gibraltar and sent us a postcard (remember those) picturing some of the macaques. “Help! It turns out “monkey” is Spanish for gay,” he wrote, continuing, “And I only wanted to feed them fruit and nuts.”
Are they incestuous?