Page 20

HIGH GEAR

JANUARY 1976

Infra-Human Homosexuality

By Jerry Juszczyk

As Wainwright Churchill so eloquently argues in his book Homosexual Behavior Among Males (Prentice Hall, 1967,) the impression that "infra-human" mammals restrict themselves to heterosexual activities is a distortion of the fact which appears to have originated in man-made philosophy, rather than in specific observations of mammalian behavior. Objective analysis of sexual behavior among lower animals has revealed that sexual contacts between individuals of the same sex occur in almost every species of mammal monkeys, dogs, bulls, rats, porcupines, guinea pigs, goats, elephants, lions, baboons, and porpoises.

According to Churchill, among these and other animals, homosexual encounters between males are more conspicuous and occur more frequently than between females.

Homosexual behavior among animals below the level of primates seems more often than not, to be entirely fortuitous. Many times, it results from a failure to identify the sex of the intended partner. The sexually aroused animal will attempt to mate with the nearest partner. This indicates the absence of any "heterosexual instinct" and suggests the only thing innate is an undifferentiated drive toward the release of sexual tension.

Just as there is no inherent heterosexual instinct, there is, likewise, no inherent tendency to avoid homosexual contacts among the lower mammals. The learning of rigid heterosexual or homosexual patterns and the learning patterns of avoidance are significantly more common among humans.

Ford and Beach (Patterns of Sexual Behavior, N.Y., Harper & Brothers), reporting on the observations of McBride and Hebb point to an interesting

case

of spontaneous homosexuality between two male porpoises. These mammals, incidentally, have been found to have a "psychologic status"

considerably above that of most terrestial animals such as dogs, cats, cows, and horses:

The two male porposies formed a close attachment to each other and after some time one of the pair was removed from the observation tank for three weeks. The following response took place upon the

reunion of the two:

"No doubt could exist that the two recognized each other and for several hours swam side-byside rushing frenziedly through the water. For several days, the two males were inseparable and neither paid any attention to a (planted) female. This was in courting season. At other times. the two males seemed inclined toward the prevention of the other's copulation with the female."

Behavior of this kind, Churchill proposes, suggests a more clearly defined form of homosexuality the higher one climbs on the scale of evolution. As partially shown above, highly evolved mammals display more of said behavior, and more important, the type of homosexuality they display, tends more often to suggest an element of preference or choice.

Ascending the phylogenetic scale to the level of primates monkeys, apes, and men, we discover that homosexual arousal is even more significantly defined and frequent. Male primates, especially, respond readily to homosexual stimuli such as mutual grooming, genital examination, sexual mounting, phallic anal penetration and mutual masturbation.

Taken on direct analysis without weighty speculative abtracts on "social dominance" and "role playing" in which some psychiatrists and anthropoligists indulge, the objective results of the aforementioned evidence indicates, according to Churchill, that "any animal, in the absence of negative conditioning, is capable of responding to any adequate stimulus, including, of course, homosexual stimuli."

It thus appears logically that the complexity of any animal's

behavior is a function of the complexity of the nervous system of the animal.

The phylogenetic base of homosexuality is frequently countered by socio-religious labels of "pathological" and "unnatural" by certain clinicians, ministers, and others. Such observers minmize the phylogenetic data by emphasizing the seemingly indiscriminate nature of infrahuman species (which is by no means indiscriminate, as is cited in the studies of Churchill's book.) Significantly, these observers also do not believe there is any connection between infra-human sexuality and that of human beings. It appears somewhat naive to additionally assume that simply because infra-humans do not conform to what we have come to regard as "normal" in our Judeo-Christian culture that we should ignore their behavior entirely.

We now evolve to what D.J. West concluded in Homsexuality (London, Duckworth Pub.) that "homosexual behavior seems to arise from some deep-rooted natural urge which finds different expression in different cultures."

Churchill subsequently synthesizes that this deeprooted natural urge is related to the phylogenetic base of homosexuality and cannot be specifically linked to a moral standpoint.

Is there then any "natural" basis for homosexuality? Dr. F.A. Beach (Sexual Behavior in Animals and Men, Springfield, III., the Harvey Lectures) addresses this point by saying: "In our society sexual contact between members of the same sex is considered extremely undersirable. Various social

are

goals and ethical laws violated by the homosexual individual; but to describe his behavior as "unnatural" is to depart from strict accuracy."

Nothing, of course, is ever unnatural as Goethe pointed out in his essay on Nature. Indeed, in the sexual realm of behavior, Kinsey agrees: "The only kind of I abnormal sex acts are those

which are impossible to perform."

To conclude, the purpose of this essay was to rationally argue that there exists no sexual behavior without a firm foundation of phylogeny and the developmental history of the species-nor is such behavior

exclusive to humans nurtured in

our own culture. In order to seek an objective, rather than simply a conventional understanding of homosexuality, we must keep these factors in mind.

By Rudi Haaken

Some years ago my family owned a mostly cocker spaniel whom we called "Spiro." His features, environment and routine behavior were pretty much those of an average frisky American watchdog. He loyally guarded our property (when he was home), esteemed himself highly (ate only what he saw us eat first), and was tolerant of other creatures (except our lawnmower which he jealously persecuted). We had owned other dogs prior to Spiro and were familiar with canine activity and development from them and those of our neighbors. There was nothing in the demeanor of our hound which distinguished him enormously from other pets. That is, not until.......

My rather confused and embarassed brothers and I discovered Spiro in the act of

coitus with another male from across the street! There was no mistaking their primal posture. They were engaged in intercourse and apparently enjoying each other immensely.

My brothers dismissed the incident with smirks and guffaws, but my then closeted mind was sent rambling in a maze of zoological speculation. This was the decisive but not the only indication of Spiro's less than ordinary sexual, predilection. Earlier our

neighbors had attempted to mate our mascot with their heretofore deprived female. Our stud displayed only mild, mostly playful interest in the proposition.

Unawares, Spiro contributed to my general enlightenment and added another crack to my slowly crumbling closet. We had raised him from a weanling. He probably did not remember his mother and could have had only the vaguest collections of his life as an infant pup. Like most domesticated canines, he had, at most, only one "role model," if indeed it can be said that dogs identify "roles" as we know them. It would be absurd to imagine that he could perceive and confuse human roles (in spite of his notion that he too was human). The gay phenomenon in other mammals does much to extinguish prevalent myths concerning

human honosexual development and heightens the mystery of sexual orientation.

Gay pets are admittedly infrequent but by no means unheard of. (Jack Nichols and Lige Clark reported in their book, Roommates Can't Always Be Lovers, that their own dog was proudly and conveniently gay).

Spiro was always popular with the other dogs in our neighborhood, straight or gay. He never knew what a closet

was

never

was, and discriminated against by his fellows because of his sexual preference. The Holy Writ does not ban sex between two dogs of the same sex. Spiro felt no guilt, fear, or inadequacy relative to his sexuality. For that matter, he was not plagued by sexism, racism and other human machinations. Clearly, there is something to be said for a "dog's life."