Mock Courtships and Sham Matings

The attitude that homosexual activity is not “genuine” sexual, courtship, or pair-bonding behavior is also sometimes made explicit in the descriptions and terminology used by researchers. In spite of witnessing two male homosexual mounts during a morning spent observing Ruffs, for example, one ornithologist reported offhandedly that “there were no real copulations” because no heterosexual mounting took place; a similar comment was made by a scientist studying Bonnet Macaques.³⁷ This attitude is also encoded directly in the words used for homosexual behaviors: rarely do animals of the same sex ever simply “copulate” or “court” or “mate” with one another (as do animals of the opposite sex). Instead, male Walruses indulge in “mock courtship” with each other, male African Elephants and Gorillas have “sham matings,” while female Sage Grouse and male Hanuman Langurs and Common Chimpanzees engage in “pseudo-matings.” Musk-oxen participate in “mock copulations,” Mallard Ducks of the same sex form “pseudo-pairs” with each other, and Blue-bellied Rollers have “fake” sexual activity. Male Lions engage in “feigned coitus” with one another, male Orang-utans and Savanna Baboons take part in “pseudo-sexual” mountings and other behaviors, while Mule Deer and Hammerheads exhibit “false mounting.” Bonobos, Japanese and Rhesus Macaques, Red Foxes, and Squirrels all perform “pseudo-copulations” with animals of the same sex.³⁸ Amid this abundance of counterfeit sexual activity, one thing is all too real: the level of denial on the part of some zoologists in dealing with this subject.³⁹

Even use of the term homosexual is controversial. Although the majority of scientific sources on same-sex activity classify the behavior explicitly as “homosexual” —and a handful even use the more loaded terms gay or lesbian ⁴⁰—many scientists are nevertheless loath to apply this term to any animal behavior. In fact, a whole “avoidance” vocabulary of alternate, and putatively more “neutral,” words has come into use. “Male-male” or “female-female” activity is the most common appellation, although some more oblique designations have also appeared, such as “male-only social interactions” in Killer Whales or “multifemale associations” for same-sex pairs in Roseate Terns and some Gulls. Homosexual activities are also called “unisexual,” “isosexual,” “intrasexual,” or “ambisexual” (meaning single-sex, same-sex, within-sex, and bisexual, respectively) in various species such as Gorillas, Ruffs, Stumptail Macaques, Hooded Warblers, and Rhesus Macaques. The use of “alternate” words such as unisexual is sometimes advocated precisely because of the homophobia evoked by the term homosexual: one scientist reports that an article on animal behavior containing homosexual in its title was widely received with a “lurid snicker” by biologists, many of whom never got beyond the “sensationalistic wording” of the title to actually read its contents.⁴¹

Occasionally there are directly opposing assertions regarding the suitability of the term homosexual for the same behavior and species. In a relatively enlightened treatment of same-sex activities in Giraffes, for example, one zoologist stated, “Such usage [of the term homosexual ] is acceptable provided it is used without the usual human connotation of stigma and sexual abnormality …. In giraffes the erection of the penis, mounting, and even possibly orgasm leaves little doubt as to the sexual motivation behind these actions.” In contrast, a decade later another zoologist objected, “Considerable significance has been attached to the fact that necking males sometimes show penis erections and that one may mount the other … such behavior has been called ‘homosexual.’ However … I … do not feel that the use of the term homosexual, with its usual (human) connotation, is justified in this context.”⁴² Ironically, where the first scientist objected only to the stigma associated with the term as applied to people, the second objected to the connotation of genuinely sexual behavior in the term as applied to people.

When it comes to heterosexual activities, however, scientists are not at all adverse to making analogies with human behaviors. Opposite-sex courtship-feeding in birds is described as “romantic” and reminiscent of human lovers kissing, male canaries whose vocalizations attract female partners are said to sing “sexy” songs, while avian heterosexual monogamy and foster-parenting are compared to similar activities in people (in spite of the acknowledged differences in the behaviors involved). Even more flagrant anthropomorphizing sometimes occurs: male-female interactions in Savanna Baboons, for example, are likened to “May-December romances,” “flirting,” and other human courtship rituals in a “singles bar”; polyandry in Tasmanian Native Hens is termed “wife-sharing”; opposite-sex bonds between cranes who readily pair with one another are characterized as “magic marriages”; and heterosexually precocious male Bonobos are dubbed “little Don Juans.” Female fireflies that lure males of other species by courting and then eating them are labeled “femmes fatales,” and one scientist even uses the term gang-bang to describe group courtship and forced heterosexual activity in Domestic Goats. Regardless of whether these characterizations are appropriate, among zoologists it is still more acceptable (in practice if not in theory) to draw human analogies where heterosexuality is concerned.⁴³

Many scientists’ denial that same-sex courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, and/or parenting activities should be put in the category of “homosexuality” are based on spurious or overly restrictive interpretations of the phenomenon (or the word). For example, Konrad Lorenz claims that gander pairs in Greylag Geese are not actually “homosexual” because sexual behavior is not necessarily an important component of such associations (not all members of gander pairs engage in sexual activity), and because not all such birds pair exclusively with other males over their entire lifetime. By the same criteria, however, opposite-sex pairs would fail to qualify as “heterosexual”: sexual activity is not an important component of male-female pairings in this species (as Lorenz himself acknowledges), and not all such birds pair exclusively with opposite-sex partners during their lives. Yet Lorenz has no qualms about labeling such pairs “heterosexual.”⁴⁴ In fact, what we have here is simply an attempt to equate homosexuality with only one characteristic or type of same-sex activity (sexual versus pair-bonding, or sequential bisexuality versus exclusive homosexuality).

In a parallel discussion of female pairs in Western Gulls, one researcher suggests that previous descriptions of such pairs as “homosexual” or “lesbian” or “gay” is inappropriate because they do not resemble homosexual pairings in humans.⁴⁵ But which homosexual pairings, in which humans? As discussed in chapter 2, there is no single type of same-sex pair-bonding in people: homosexual couples differ vastly in a wide range of factors such as their sexual behavior, social status, formation process, sexual orientation of members, participation in parenting, duration, and so on, and they vary enormously between different cultures, historical periods, and individuals. Assuming, however, that this author is referring to Euro-American lesbian couples, it is difficult to see what specific similarities are required before the label of homosexual would be considered acceptable. Same-sex pairs in both Gulls and humans engage in a variety of courtship, pair-bonding, sexual, and parenting activities and exhibit parallel variability in their formation, social status, and the sexual orientation of their partners. In fact, it is fallacious to suggest that a same-sex activity should resemble some human behavior before we can label it homosexual. A more reasonable approach (the one used in this book as well as in many scientific sources) is to take comparable behaviors in the same or closely related species as the point of reference: any activity between two animals of the same sex that involves behaviors independently recognized (usually in heterosexual contexts) as courtship, sexual, pair-bonding, or parenting activities is classified as “homosexual.” By this criterion, same-sex pairs of Gulls are “homosexual” because all of the characteristics they exhibit are well-established components of pair-bonding in heterosexual pairs of the same species—to the extent that same-sex couples have often been mistaken for heterosexual ones and unhesitatingly labeled a “mated pair” before their true sex was discovered.

More generally, a number of scientists have suggested that the term homosexual should be reserved for overt sexual behavior, and that it is inappropriate to apply this word to other behavior categories such as same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, or parenting arrangements. We might characterize this as a “narrow” definition of homosexuality (such as that assumed by Lorenz). On the other hand, homosexuality, as the term is used in this book, refers not only to overt sexual behavior between animals of the same sex, but also to related activities that are more typically associated with a heterosexual or breeding context. This usage is consistent with a number of studies in the zoological literature, in which the word is employed as a cover term for both sexual and related behaviors (e.g., courtship, pairing, parenting).⁴⁶ We might characterize this as a “broad” definition of homosexuality. Although overt sexual behavior is by far the single most common type of same-sex activity found in various species—hence the original terminology—the other behavior categories also occur in a sizable proportion of cases in which same-sex activities have been documented. In many (but not all) species, behaviors of various categories co-occur (e.g., sexual and courtship activity with pair-bonding, courtship or bonding with parenting, and so on). There are also numerous cases where only one behavior type is instantiated, or where several behavior categories co-occur in the same species but are not necessarily observed in the same individuals (e.g., sexual behavior may be seen between some animals, courtship behavior between others, etc.). In some cases this represents actual discontinuities of behaviors; in others, it represents observational gaps. When the term homosexuality is employed in the broad sense for these cases, it is always with the understanding that only selected behavior categories or co-occurrences may be involved (as in observations of heterosexual behavior).⁴⁷

The difference between these two usages of the term homosexual can be illustrated with an example involving two different forms of same-sex activity (each widely attested in birds, sometimes both in the same species). On one hand, consider two female birds that are pair-bonded to each other for life, regularly engage in courtship activity with one another, build a nest each year in which they jointly lay eggs, and on one occasion raise chicks together (fathered via a single heterosexual copulation that season by one of the partners), yet never mount each other. On the other hand, consider a male bird who is mated to a female partner for life—with whom he regularly copulates and raises offspring—but who participates in a single copulation with another male (and never again engages in such behavior for the remainder of his life). A narrow definition of homosexuality would require us to consider the first case to be somehow less “homosexual” than the second simply because no overt sexual behavior takes place between the two females. A broad view of homosexuality, on the other hand, recognizes that both cases involve homosexual behavior—but of two distinct types that need to be carefully distinguished in terms of their social context as well as the other sexual and pairing activities of the participants (since both scenarios actually exemplify contrasting forms of bisexuality). Unlike the narrow definition, this usage acknowledges the complexities and variability of same-sex interactions in the animal world, while providing a useful framework for cross-species comparisons and generalizations; it also offers the possibility of more precise and nuanced characterizations of sexual orientation.

Most scientists are understandably wary of anthropomorphizing animals with terms that have wide applicability in a human context—as well they should be—and obviously not all zoologists who avoid the word homosexual are motivated by homophobia. Nevertheless, the lengths that are taken to circumvent terminology that can easily be clarified with a simple explanatory statement often border on the absurd.⁴⁸

“Not Included in the Tabulated Statistics”

Even when homosexual behavior is recognized as such, detailed study of it is often omitted or passed over, or the phenomenon is marginalized and trivialized. For instance, numerous published reports on the courtship and copulation behavior of animals provide excruciatingly detailed descriptions and statistics on frequency of mounts, number of ejaculations, duration of penile erections, number of thrusts, timing of estrous cycles, total number of sexual partners, and so on and so forth—but all for heterosexual interactions. In contrast, homosexual activity is often mentioned only in passing, not deemed worthy of the exhaustive coverage that is afforded “real” sexual behavior.⁴⁹ In a detailed study of Spinner Dolphin sexual activity, for example, only heterosexual behavior is quantified and given a thorough statistical treatment, even though the author recognizes the prominence of homosexual activity in this species and actually states directly that its frequency exceeds that of heterosexual behavior. Another study of the same species mentions homosexual copulations without providing the total number observed, unlike heterosexual matings. In a tabulation of homosexual and heterosexual activity in Kob antelopes, the number of male partners of each female is cataloged while the number of female partners is not. Likewise, articles on Crested Black Macaque and Brown Capuchin sexual behavior acknowledge the occurrence of female homosexual activity yet offer no statistics on this behavior, even though it is said to be more common (in Crested Blacks) than male homosexual activity (which, along with heterosexual behavior, is quantified). Finally, graphs of the frequency of various Giraffe activities in one study fail to provide adequate information on homosexual mounts: all same-sex interactions are lumped into the category of “sparring” (a form of fighting) without distinguishing actual sparring from necking (a ritualized, nonviolent form of play-fighting and affection) or mounting activity.⁵⁰

Sometimes certain aspects of homosexual activity are excluded or arbitrarily eliminated from an overall analysis or tabulation—often resulting in a distorted picture of same-sex interactions (regardless of whether the omission is deliberate or well-motivated). For instance, a female Western Gull who exhibited the most overt sexual activity with her female partner was “not included in the tabulated statistics” of a study comparing heterosexual and homosexual behaviors. By failing to incorporate data from this individual (intentionally or not), researchers undoubtedly helped foster the (now widely cited) impression that sexual activity is a uniformly negligible aspect of female pairing in this species. Along the same lines, scientists surveying pair formation in Black-crowned Night Herons only tabulated homosexual couples that they considered to be “caused” by the “crowded” conditions of captivity. They ignored a male pair whose formation could not be attributed to such conditions and also overlooked the fact that such “crowded” conditions regularly occur in wild colonies of the same species. And all data concerning same-sex pairs or coparents in Laughing Gulls, Canary-winged Parakeets, Greater Rheas, and Zebra Finches were excluded from general studies of pair-bonding, nesting, or other behaviors in these species.⁵¹

The significance of homosexual activity is sometimes also downplayed in discussions of its prevalence or frequency. Certainly many variables must be considered when trying to quantify same-sex activity, and the task is rarely straightforward (as we saw in chapter 1). Nevertheless, in some instances homosexual frequency is interpreted or calculated so as to give the impression that same-sex activity is less common than it really is or else is de-emphasized in terms of its importance relative to other species. In Gorillas, for example, homosexual activity in females is classified as “rare” because investigators observed it “only” 10 times on eight separate days. However, these figures are incomplete unless compared with the frequency of heterosexual interactions during the same period. In fact, 98 episodes of heterosexual mating were recorded during the same period, which means that 9 percent of all sexual activity was homosexual—a significant percentage when compared to other species.⁵² Similarly, investigators studying lesbian pairs in Western Gulls state, “We have estimated female-female pairs make up only 10—15 percent of the population” (emphasis added), when in fact this is one of the higher rates recorded for homosexual pairs in any bird species (and certainly the highest rate reported at that time). Homosexual mounting in female Spotted Hyenas is claimed to be much less frequent than in other female mammals, yet no specific figures are offered; the one species that is mentioned in comparison is the Guinea Pig, a domesticated rodent that is not necessarily the best model for a wild carnivore.⁵³

It is also important to consider the behavioral type and context when evaluating frequency. Homosexual copulations in Tree Swallows, for example, have been characterized as “exceedingly rare” because they have been observed only infrequently and are much less common than heterosexual matings between pair-bonded birds. However, homosexual copulations are nonmonogamous matings (i.e., they typically involve birds that are not paired to one another and may even have heterosexual mates); it is insufficient in this case to compare the frequency rates of two different kinds of copulation (within-pair and extra-pair). In fact, the more comparable heterosexual behavior—nonmonogamous copulations involving males and females—are also “rarely” seen. Early observers considered them to be exceedingly uncommon (or nonexistent), while a later study documented only two such matings during four years of observation, and subsequent research has yielded consistently low levels of observed promiscuous (heterosexual) copulations. Yet scientists now know that such matings must be common because of the high rates of offspring resulting from them—in some populations, more than three-quarters of all nestlings (as verified by DNA testing). Thus, it is likely that the frequency of homosexual nonmonogamous matings has been similarly underestimated.⁵⁴

Many scientists, on first observing an episode of homosexual activity, are also quick to classify the behavior as an exceptional or isolated occurrence for that species. In contrast, a single observed instance of heterosexuality is routinely interpreted as representative of a recurrent behavior pattern, even though it may occur (or be observed) extremely rarely or exhibit wide variation in form or context. This sets up a double standard in assessing and interpreting the prevalence of each behavior type, especially since opposite-sex mating can be a less than ubiquitous or uniform feature of an animal’s social life (see chapter 5). It also conflicts with the patterns established for other species. In repeated instances, homosexual activity was initially recorded in only one episode, dyad, or population (and usually interpreted—or dismissed—as an isolated example), but was then confirmed by subsequent research as a regular feature of the behavioral repertoire of the species—often spanning many decades, geographic areas, and behavioral contexts. ⁵⁵ It is no longer possible to claim that homosexuality is an anomalous occurrence in a certain species simply because it has only been observed a handful of times.

In some cases, conflicting verbal assessments of the prevalence of homosexual activity are offered by the same investigators, when the actual quantitative data show a relatively high occurrence. Homosexual courtship/copulation in Pukeko, for example, is described as being both “common” and “relatively rare”—the actual rate of 7 percent of all sexual activity is in fact fairly high compared to other species (and the same-sex courtship rates are even higher). Likewise, a report on Black-headed Gulls states, “Homosexual pairs were also rare,” then a few pages later counterasserts that “male-male bonds occurred rather commonly”—and at approximately 16 percent of all pairs observed, the actual rates support the latter interpretation more than the former.⁵⁶ Not only are these assessments inconsistent and unfair with regard to the observed rates of homosexuality, they also run counter to a standard cross-species measure of heterosexual frequency. Although there is no absolute or universal criterion for what is “rare” or “common,” biologists do recognize a “threshold” of 5 percent as being significant where at least one heterosexual behavior is concerned—polygamy. When this mating system is exhibited by only a minority of the population (as is true in many birds, for example), it is nevertheless considered to be a “regular” feature of the species’ behavioral repertoire when its incidence reaches 5 percent. This is certainly far less than the rate of homosexuality in many species where same-sex behavior is regarded as “uncommon” or “exceptional.”⁵⁷

In a vivid example of the marginalization that often surrounds discussion of animal homosexuality, scientists sometimes find their own descriptions of same-sex activity published with “amendments,” “asides,” or “explanations” inserted by journal or reprint editors who are uncomfortable with the content or appellation. For example, one ornithologist’s description of homosexual activity in House Sparrows and Brown-headed Cowbirds was embellished with a note from the editor of the journal where it appeared, offering several implausible “reinterpretations” of the behavior that eliminated any sexual motivation. Likewise, when descriptions of homosexual activity in Baboons from the 1920s were reprinted nearly half a century later, a scientist who penned the introduction to the new edition felt compelled to annotate the offending passages with the “modern” viewpoint that such activity is not really homosexual. And editors of the journal British Birds scrambled to try to “explain” a case of homosexual pairing in male Kestrels as actually involving a “male-plumaged female” (i.e., a female bird that looked exactly like a male). They added in their published postscript to the article that this putative plumage variation was, in their opinion, “of much more interest than the copulation or attempted one between the two males” that was the primary focus of the author’s report.⁵⁸

In a similar vein, one scientist who observed a pair of female Chaffinches hedged his bets by saying only that “female-plumaged” birds were involved, leaving open the possibility that one might still have been a male (and consequently part of a heterosexual pair)—even though there was absolutely no evidence that either bird could have been a male. He finally had to concede that the birds “were surely females.” Sometimes this strategy backfires, as in the case of an early description of courtship display in Regent Bowerbirds (mentioned previously), in which the presumed “female-plumaged” birds both turned out to be males—and therefore still participants in homosexual activities.⁵⁹ These cases show that scientists are sometimes reluctant even to commit to the sex of the animals they are observing if it seems that homosexuality might be involved—in stark contrast to the haste with which they usually judge (or assume) participants to be opposite-sexed on the scantiest of evidence.