Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 19, 2010
Sex Birds Do It, Bees Do It...
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 1:35 PM
...even animated skunks do it.
Gee, why can't humans be monogamous like rabbits, cats, deer, skunks, and bees? (Psst? Osborn? "No adultery" actually means that you can only put your 'toon penis in your legally wedded wife's 'toon vagina—unless your wife turns into a pillar of salt, in which case you can shift your loyalty to your daughters' vaginas.)
Thanks to Slog tipper RBJ.
1
Not adultery means be loyal by not breaking promises? I don't see them being against the promise of an open relationship :)
3
Wait, I thought you were supposed to sleep with your wife's sister first ... dang, that Bible sure is confusing!
5
@2: Does that mean that the boy was a young Jos. Smith?
What was that clip from? That was very strange indeed.
What was that clip from? That was very strange indeed.
6
The brand new episode of South Park from Wednesday was all about the delusion of monogamy. It was brilliant. You can watch it online for at least the next couple days.
8
Good to know that dan is against loyalty.
One good proof of the nature of monogamy is that it takes two ( female and male ) to proccrate. Not three, four, five or more. Just two.
One good proof of the nature of monogamy is that it takes two ( female and male ) to proccrate. Not three, four, five or more. Just two.
10
@ 8, that's not proof of jack shit. (Hint: while it may take just one guy's sperm to get a woman pregnant, she may have multiple partners to ensure that she does. Not monogamy, doofus.)
And pay attention to your spellcheck, m'kay?
Signed, a happily monogamous straight man.
And pay attention to your spellcheck, m'kay?
Signed, a happily monogamous straight man.
11
Gee - now that I have seen this, I can toss aside all of the complexity of human emotion, relationships, and our ever-changing understanding of ourselves and the world around us. It's so simple: Be loyal, y'all! And procreate. (And if I am disloyal, it's just a simple matter of making a public apology and being born again....and again...and again! So simple.)
12
...I honestly can't decide if that makes me want to gag, laugh until I cry, or just plain cry.
Who the fuck makes this shit, and for the love of kittens WHY?
Who the fuck makes this shit, and for the love of kittens WHY?
13
But what if I truly love several people? And what if they love each other and me as well? Should I be loyal to all of them? Or just one? And if the latter, *which* one? The first one? The one most likely to procreate with me?
Also, which type of love should I be acting upon? Friendly love, brotherly/sisterly love, compassionate love, agape, romantic love...? More? Also, since romantic love is a pretty recent human invention, how does that fit into "traditional marriage", where daughters were sold and bartered to suitors in arranged marriages?
Please advise.
Also, which type of love should I be acting upon? Friendly love, brotherly/sisterly love, compassionate love, agape, romantic love...? More? Also, since romantic love is a pretty recent human invention, how does that fit into "traditional marriage", where daughters were sold and bartered to suitors in arranged marriages?
Please advise.
14
@8 Fuck you, LC.
What we are against here in sanityland is the automatic equation of loyalty with monogamy and you know it.
But then what's with the implied prepubescent polyandry implied in the end of the 'toon? The little boys run off into the sunset and the little girl yells, "Hey! wait for me!" as she follows. If these are the same folkses who see Communist Propaganda in "Brown Bear Brown Bear, what do you see?" how could they miss the sexual implications in the 'toon?
What we are against here in sanityland is the automatic equation of loyalty with monogamy and you know it.
But then what's with the implied prepubescent polyandry implied in the end of the 'toon? The little boys run off into the sunset and the little girl yells, "Hey! wait for me!" as she follows. If these are the same folkses who see Communist Propaganda in "Brown Bear Brown Bear, what do you see?" how could they miss the sexual implications in the 'toon?
15
@8 Fuck you, LC.
What we are against here in sanityland is the automatic equation of loyalty with monogamy and you know it.
But then what's with the implied prepubescent polyandry implied in the end of the 'toon? The little boys run off into the sunset and the little girl yells, "Hey! wait for me!" as she follows. If these are the same folkses who see Communist Propaganda in "Brown Bear Brown Bear, what do you see?" how could they miss the sexual implications in the 'toon?
What we are against here in sanityland is the automatic equation of loyalty with monogamy and you know it.
But then what's with the implied prepubescent polyandry implied in the end of the 'toon? The little boys run off into the sunset and the little girl yells, "Hey! wait for me!" as she follows. If these are the same folkses who see Communist Propaganda in "Brown Bear Brown Bear, what do you see?" how could they miss the sexual implications in the 'toon?
16
@8 Um, procreation involves man juice and a lady's egg... Marriage, love or monogamy don't have a bearing in the matter...
17
@8, and yep, Dan sure is against loyalty alright! Just look at his long-term committed partner, and the son they adopted! To say nothing of his long-term and published committment to open communication, the conscious evolution of relationships, and better sex for everyone!
No loyalty demonstrated there, no sirree!
(Confidential to Loveschild: Why do you make patently absurd comments like that? Don't you realize that it only serves to undermine your own validity? )
No loyalty demonstrated there, no sirree!
(Confidential to Loveschild: Why do you make patently absurd comments like that? Don't you realize that it only serves to undermine your own validity? )
20
@17 You do have to constantly wonder if Loveschild is actually a parody of social conservatism run by a liberal in order to make the comments on Slog more interesting. On most cases, it doesn't seem like it. But every once in a while, you get a comment like today's that's just so delightfully absurd. It's sort of like an argument that Stephen Colbert would make.
21
@8 There are "ethnic groups" (for lack of a better term) alive today in this world where the procreatory father of the child takes care of his SISTER's children. And his children are taken care of by the brother of his "wife". Perfectly valid child-rearing strategy that has persisted for millenia.
Are you going to cultural-imperialistically tell us the "they are doing it wrong" because the post-Christian West has decided that some sort of "monogamous", "nuclear family" (itself a recent invention in human history) is now the standard by which all human child-rearing is to be guided by?
Study some f*cking anthropology. The world is far, far more interesting and varied that most seem to realize.
Are you going to cultural-imperialistically tell us the "they are doing it wrong" because the post-Christian West has decided that some sort of "monogamous", "nuclear family" (itself a recent invention in human history) is now the standard by which all human child-rearing is to be guided by?
Study some f*cking anthropology. The world is far, far more interesting and varied that most seem to realize.
24
the video then takes a darker turn when it is revealed that the kitty is an adulteress and is brought before the entire toon village for the gory animated lapidation.
25
There are "ethnic groups"
@21 names ?
And it still takes two procreate, "man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" ( which answers @13 ). The fact that the "ethnic groups" that you cite have retained the belief of "it takes a village" ( which has been something very universally held till recently ) when it comes to the raising of children ( something we have sadly lost in this nation ) is not proof that monogamy is not natural.
@21 names ?
And it still takes two procreate, "man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" ( which answers @13 ). The fact that the "ethnic groups" that you cite have retained the belief of "it takes a village" ( which has been something very universally held till recently ) when it comes to the raising of children ( something we have sadly lost in this nation ) is not proof that monogamy is not natural.
28
@lovschild - Can you offer proof that monogamy IS natural? Proof or evidence. And I would ask that you cite scientific evidence or natural observable phenomena and not the Bible, since the Bible is a book of stories - not facts.
29
@25: Monogamy may be natural, but it does not mean that polyamory or promiscuity are not. Look at our closest non-human relatives: chimpanzees and bonobos. You just don't see sexual exclusivity at all with them. They'll have whatever flings they feel like and can get away with. Our next closest extant cousins, the gorillas, have harem systems, where the dominant silverback has up to four or five ladies all to himself. Other species even in different orders, such as many birds, mate for life. Still other species are varied in their sexual habits. So just because monogamy is natural for some doesn't mean that polyamory or promiscuity aren't just as natural for others.
Crawl back into your hole.
Crawl back into your hole.
30
Animals are such classless sluts, oogling the first member of their species who wanders by. And that damn bee seems ready to marry the first other bee he sees? Just because there was a drop of nectar (flowers don't work that way!) on the flower she was hiding on?
And what if one of these animals cross-dresses (I mean, the only indication of a sex is a ribbon or mascara)? Does that mean you have to divorce or stick with them anyway?
And what if one of these animals cross-dresses (I mean, the only indication of a sex is a ribbon or mascara)? Does that mean you have to divorce or stick with them anyway?
31
Monogamy maybe natural, but it's far less common than non-monogamy. It's true that most animals are socially monogamous, meaning a pair of animals that share a territory, engage in certain behaviours demonstrating that they're paired, and so on. However, the great majority of these socially monogamous animals are not sexually monogamous. Sexual monogamy is extremely rare among animals, most of which engage in extra-pair copulation (that is, sex with an animal other than their primary mate). Among mammals, in fact, our closest relatives, a mere 3% are even socially monogamous, and fully 90% of these are sexually NON-monogamous. If you want to talk about nature.
33
The related videos after the video ends (if you somehow managed to make it that far) include the music video for Nelly Furtado's Promiscuous.
34
some of the animals don't even get make-up or a ribbon to denote gender. they're just different colors. will children pick up on that? or will they be confused by the gay interracial groundhogs?
35
This was pretty cheesy, but the sentiment behind it is fine. It's obviously some kind of kids' video, so using silly songs and a simplification of "no adultery" as "value loyalty" isn't so far off. If anything, introducing the idea that staying in a committed relationship isn't easy, "temptation's always there," is something we should approve of.
36
"Be LOY-al...to the one you love...be LOY-al..."
Aw, crap! Now I can't get that song out of my head.
Aw, crap! Now I can't get that song out of my head.
38
@8: A woman can only carry through one pregnancy at a time, whereas a man can impregnate several women in one day (if he gets really lucky). It is therefore evolutionarily beneficial to live in what anthropologists refer to as "orgy communities."
39
I for one am perfectly willing to give rabbit-style monogamy a try (um, hold the rabbits themselves though)... And is it just me, or did that girl cat look a little young for the boy cat...
40
20 - I've been wanting to say this for a long time. Comment threads that are taken over by people responding to Loveschild are more boring than shit. I find them very very uninteresting.
41
@39 Well of course you have to hold the rabbits otherwise they'll hop away while you're trying to . . .
Why are you all looking at me like that?
Why are you all looking at me like that?
43
At least it favours some same sex interaction. The Bees; we all know than only females leave the hive. In the video one is dressed as butch, and the other is fem, but both girl bees!
Bwuahahahahaha
Bwuahahahahaha
44
Hate to tell you this Kitty, but I see your lion friend in the tight white jeans cruising guys at bars all the time. Incidentally, isn't yours technically a cross-species relationship?
45
What's rather amusing is the only monogamous species portrayed in the video is the swan. Which does have a low incidence of straying, but does not truly mate for life. If a swan or goose's mate dies, it will have another mate in the next year.
I don't know of any animal that lives the fabled monogamous until the day it dies, even if it's mate dies, kind of life. Monogamy is rare in mammals as Dingo pointed out, and most forms of monogamy in birds is serial monogamy. A house finch may have one male bird for that breeding season, but switch it up the next year with another male.
Your proof of monogamy Loveschild, is utterly ridiculous. Polygamy is more common for the simple reason that it increases the chances of fertility. Also, amongst many species such as cats (even domestic cats), bonobos, the females mate with multiple males to confuse parentage (amongst bonobos) or to ensure that as many of their offspring are fathered by as many of the local males as possible. Why? It decreases the likelihood of infanticide.
For most of the animal kingdom, multiple matings is a better and more successful breeding strategy.
I don't know of any animal that lives the fabled monogamous until the day it dies, even if it's mate dies, kind of life. Monogamy is rare in mammals as Dingo pointed out, and most forms of monogamy in birds is serial monogamy. A house finch may have one male bird for that breeding season, but switch it up the next year with another male.
Your proof of monogamy Loveschild, is utterly ridiculous. Polygamy is more common for the simple reason that it increases the chances of fertility. Also, amongst many species such as cats (even domestic cats), bonobos, the females mate with multiple males to confuse parentage (amongst bonobos) or to ensure that as many of their offspring are fathered by as many of the local males as possible. Why? It decreases the likelihood of infanticide.
For most of the animal kingdom, multiple matings is a better and more successful breeding strategy.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (45) RSS