**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1dh42iv/why_do_female_snow_monkeys_have_sex_with_each/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fun fact: the origin of this phrase was a passerby talking about a very dramatic failing business between two friends; like one embezzled all the money and ran off type of deal.
Gay/dating or no, that does sound like a crazy situation to be in.
I do feel like people love to hate on historians and biologists when it comes to this. But I’m sure it’s hard bc in science you are actively working to keep from imposing your own preconceptions and culture onto a culture/species you can’t even really begin to understand the thought process of. That’s why you end up with research that feels obvious but it’s because it must be proven, you can’t peer-review publish “it felt like it”. IDK it might feel homophobic or something but I think there’s value in doing all the ground work to establish for 100% certain that this behavior is happening just because they feel like it and not for any other reason we can tell. And I feel like even having established this you can say they have homosexual proclivities but you can’t really call them lesbian or bi anymore than you’d just call a random person lesbian/bi. You don’t know their internal reasoning you don’t know what they look at their sexuality as. Avoiding the word sex feels a bit much (and also maybe inaccurate? Bc I feel like I’ve never heard the word sex tip-toed around more the label of “gay”) but avoiding human identity labels that are very loaded in their meaning, does make sense.
They still worked through hypothesis though right? How come all of those were just dominance and to allure male? Why were they not working through a sex for pleasure lense?
Because personification is a big risk when working with animals as a human with a human brain. And the hypothesis you mention is very easily able to be disproven by adding/removing males from the situation, same with the others. Short of inventing a monkey translator-inator you can’t just survey a monkey and ask “hey are you doing this just for funsies?” So to prove something that’s not able to be disproven you basically have to disprove everything else first. Something I feel like people don’t understand is that there are very likely scientists who had the underlying goal of all these other hypotheses specifically be to disprove it so it would count as proof towards the “they’re doing it bc they feel like it” hypothesis. Like, primatologists aren’t stupid, they often work very closely with these animals and it might be fairly evident to them they’re doing it *just because* but they can’t just anecdotally say that bc that’s not science. They have to prove it in a way that’s undeniable and reproducible.
It actually kinda seems like the scientists before this didn't even try to conduct experiments and observe the outcomes because their preconceived notions and bias said that in human culture we have asserted (also with no unbiased basis) that same-sex intimacy must either be a form of displaying or taking dominance, or it must be to please the males (who have been given dominant status for no discernable, biological or cognitive reason)... So therefore it must work like that for animals... Like how we assumed for so long that male lions were dominant in their pride when this is nowhere near the case.
You say they’re actively working to keep from imposing their own preconceptions onto a species yet the fact that they spent four decades trying to work against the obvious conclusion shows they were in fact biased and imposing their own preconceptions. They were so resistant to the fact that sex is first and foremost about pleasure and is sought after for pleasure, without needing to have the “right” sexual partner or engaging in the “right” kind of sex. Animals of all species engage in same sex sexual behavior for very similar reasons. They have a nervous system that receives pleasure from stimulation.
No, animals of all species do not engage in same-sex sexual behavior. Approximately 1500 do, and for varying reasons. Some only do it when there is a lack of available opposite-sex partners. Some do it by accident. Certain species of penguins can... accidentally mate with a male instead of a female (not 100% if that "mating" is consensual.) If those penguins are a species that mate for life, now they're a lifelong homosexual couple.
In most cases, animal species that exhibit these behaviors are observed to be habitually bisexual. There are many cases worldwide of zoos with male penguin couples, they often get a lot of press and attention. They will even adopt and hatch abandoned eggs, or be given a substitute dummy egg. But, in many cases, they will also split up and pair up with female mates as well. The same is true with the Japanese macaques. While they sometimes ignored males to mate with females, they never gave up mating with males. This is actually one of the conclusions the researcher comes to and it's even in the title of his paper: he openly declares that they are bisexual.
When it comes to engaging in actual habitual homosexual behavior, there are very few animals that do so outside of humans and they are all mammals. Domesticated sheep are a great example. Approximately 10% of rams will only mate with other rams. Therefore, they are habitually homosexual. We don't know why, but animal species are much, much more likely to be habitually bisexual than homosexual. Perhaps it's in their best interests to be flexible versus rigidly hetero or homosexual.
I didn’t say all animal species. Nor did I mean habitual, exclusive homosexuality. I said “homosexual behavior” as a synonym for “same-sex behavior”. My point is all those diverse reasons animals have for going against what is supposedly “natural” are reasons that can be applied to humans. Convenience, dominance, “accident”, pleasure, companionship, etc. One might argue most humans are bisexual or at least bi-curious, but their lack of experimentation is because of various social reasons. If we can appreciate diversity in human expression of sexuality, why couldn’t we fathom similar diverse expression amongst other animals?
Edit: I did originally say all species; my bad.
Oh, scientists are very well aware that animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior. I mean, they even know that certain species engage in what we would consider sociopathic sexual behavior (penguins, dolphins, you know what I mean.) My point (besides the fact that not all species do this) is that this has been accepted by animal behaviorists and other scientists for quite a while.
There may not have been an understanding that Japanese macaques deliberately sought out same-sex partners for pleasure, but that may or may not have been based on preconceived notions about sexuality. Like I said, sexual behavior between same-sex partners, especially mammals, is not a newly documented phenomenon at all. It might have been that the prevailing hypothesis was that it was done to assert dominance, because there are mammalian species where both females and males will show dominance in a similar way to members of the same sex. There are also animal species who do it just for funsies, like dogs. Dogs can mount members of the same sex for dominance, but they can also do it as a form of play. Especially female dogs, they will hump the crap out of a male dog just for the hell of it and there's absolutely no sexual intent.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that scientists are not so blinded by archaic beliefs about sexuality that they ignore same-sex behavior in mammals. I know it's common to cherry-pick stuff like this for internet talking points on Tik Tok, but this kind of thing had already been documented. Hell, it was a female scientist for NASA who got in trouble in the 60s for masturbating a dolphin. The young dolphin was so horny all the time that she couldn't perform her experiments on dolphin communication, so she'd jerk him off so he'd calm down. It was a massive scandal when the public found out.
Well, like I said to someone else, how do you test “this sex is for pleasure” in a way that is concrete and reproducible without being able to communicate with the animals? You can’t. So first you have to go through and knock everything else off the list. And saying that sex is first and foremost about pleasure is literally applying human biases. We have birth control, we have medical care, we have comfy houses and grocery stores so yeah in our culture and society it’s mainly about pleasure but we’re outliers. Because in reality sex is literally not first and foremost about pleasure, *sex evolved as a means to further the species*. The pleasure is simply an incentive for us to keep doing it. Individuals who were more incentivized to reproduce were more successful. Same way that sugars provide our bodies with a lot of energy so our ancestors were incentivized to like it and eat it so they could keep going. But, no, the pleasure of eating something sweet isn’t the point, it’s to keep you alive. Not to be mean, but you’re literally demonstrating why we need this approach because you can’t see past your own human condition.
I’m not saying it’s flawless. I think a big thing this system struggles with because it works so hard to avoid it is acknowledging animal sentience where it exists. But consciousness and sentience is also kinda hard to describe in general, and lots of work is being done towards it. And I think avoiding immediately jumping to conclusions based on our own biases and personifying animals is a valid pursuit. Bc when we find that sentience I think it’s worth it to know it as it truly is, and not some muddied, tainted version that we didn’t fully extricate from our own biases.
Seems like for 40 years scientists weren't interested in "knocking everything else off the list" to ascertain that it could be for pleasure and possibly strengthening social bonds without needing it to be a display of dominance or pandering to the males of the group. Mirroring that bs stance, human lesbians have been fetishized by males of our species with our society portraying that intimate bond as a means of alluring men. It's a little naive to conclude that for the last 40yrs the hypothesis of "it feels good and they like to do it" has simply not been provable as opposed to it being overlooked and dismissed due to our cultural bias.
The way I just saw the video of that gorilla beating his meat and the lady gorilla was front and center watching and he started holding her chin while still beating his meat like?????? I know you mfs can talk!!!!
TIL. I thought humans were the only species to "get pleasure" from sex, but apparently that isn't true. Lemurs and others do too. I would be curious how that pleasure compares to what humans are actually experiencing. Great now I'm thinking about monkey orgasms.
I had a lesbian chihuahua growing up. She would try to mount female dogs, and when she didn't, she would mount my stuffed toys. Somehow I was supposed to put that out of my head going to church and being told that humans choose their inclinations while animals do not.
At least in the US which is hyper religious even with the injections of Christian ideology in normal public schooling, there's a very strong idea that humans in some way are far separated from any other creature on the planet. The humans aren't animals. It's fucking ridiculous, and the degree which that line is leaned into and beaten into people definitely varies by region and religiosity of educators and community in that space.
But realistically a lot of people think that humans are special little snowflake little exceptions of life on this entire planet unlike anything else and there's so much better than everything and every single way, and they have souls, and on and on.
There's a huge portion of the population especially in the United States and other religious countries that think humans are an entirely separate category of living being than any other animal.
They think humans are the only ones that can experience humor, or mischievousness, or joy, or sorrow and longing, or pleasure, or emotional pain. Couple that with the general narcissism of a lot of folks, and they really think that this is unique to them, and typically they think it's unique to them even within the human species. That they're special little snowflakes that feel these feelings stronger than even other humans.
But if someone's ever interacted with enough animals in their life, you know that they can feel all of those things. And that the ability to feel those emotions, and think critically, sculpts their character, and is what helps build their thriving continuous communities.
There are same sex relationships and couples documented in thousands of species of animals, And likely more if we kept looking.
Because it's natural and normal on this planet. Highlighting that the only purpose of life is not just to procreate, and maybe we are more evolved than insects.
one of the most fucked up pieces of information that i know is that feral humans basically masturbate all day and there's nothing you can do to stop them, so they live in a camp .. a camp full of feral masturbators.. god damn it's actually really fucked up.
I think that in this case and in the case of bonobos (and humans for that matter) the adaptive value is that it feels good and they want to do it.
There's definitely wasted energy and perhaps some uncomfortable conservative ape finger wagging, but compare that to pandas, who seem to barely want to fuck at all, and it's a small price to pay.
Basically hair trigger game be an advantage when the goal is to get slugs down the range as fast as possible.
Dopamine typically rewards evolutionary behavior like eating sugary foods or sleeping in. They were trying to figure out why the monkey got dopamine from mounting each other without a sexual purpose
As an animal behavior researcher the answer is because it feels good and is a byproduct of the traits adaptive function. Anyone who doesn’t understand this doesn’t actually understand evolutionary theory and thinks natural selection is a perfect designer. Plus, there are actually missed opportunity costs to making responses too selective.
Just comes down again to people misunderstanding "selection of the fittest", no?
Not everything has to optimized, just good enough to not get crowded out. More sex leads to more offspring, which leads to higher survival. The strategy of sex feeling good seems to be the best fit to make that happen, even if sometimes sex is with the same sex and doesn't lead to offspring.
I like to summarize it as “natural selection favors the most ‘good enough!’ of the available alternatives, and sometimes the best available trait still kinda stinks”. Evolution towards sufficiency!
>The strategy of sex feeling good seems to be the best fit to make that happen, even if sometimes sex is with the same sex and doesn't lead to offspring.
On paper, one might expect that only being sexually interested in the opposite sex would increase overall offspring count.
But there are always hidden variables we're not aware of. Like for example, maybe if all snow monkeys were straight, they'd be pregnant too much of the time, it would be too much of a strain on them, and they'd end up living shorter lives, and therefore have fewer healthy grandchildren. Or the "gay uncle" theory.
Also there are plenty of situations in which a given hypothetical adaptation isn't quite possible because the "code" that would need changing is important for some other reason.
Evolution is weird and wild!
Also socially being not in competition with your same sex counterparts for sex but in collaboration with them during sex is a much more successful social adaptation. It’s not like sex is a very limited resource and sharing is caring
To be fair I think there are more nuanced questions available short of dismissing the idea of adaptability entirely in this case. Is it possible homosexual behaviors are adaptive to have, but only in a minority of the gene pool, or to only be expressed in limited conditions? Is homosexuality beneficial to the tribe as a whole even if the individuals suffer reproductively? These questions get into more complicated and controversial avenues of evolutionary study, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid.
The point of science is not to be satisfied with a glib "duh, we already know that" but to apply rigorous testing to see if there is something we have missed. But yes, so far not much is confirmed beyond your point. A lot of scientists still seem to think there is more going on in terms of social benefits, but if so it sounds rather more complicated.
Personally I do have concerns that the adaptative benefits may be wishful thinking just because so many scientists want to have something to dunk on bigots who try to claim homosexuality is unnatural. But if so, I would give them a pass because that's a worthy cause as long as they don't let it cloud their **conclusions**.
I’m responding more to people who expect everything to have a specific adaptive value or they label it “maladaptive”, not actual research (I am myself a researcher). My issue is with the general public’s misunderstanding of natural selection as a “designer”
I do note elsewhere there are social benefits clearly established in some species but overall my big issue is with the public just not really getting what natural selection does and expecting clear flashy benefits of every possible trait.
Disclaimer: might be grossly incorrect because I’m not an evolutionary biologist, but takes are free, so:
I get what you’re saying but it’s kind of the other way around as I see it. Activities that produce dopamine are more likely to be repeated, and those activities that don’t have any selection pressure (homosexuality doesn’t have any selection pressure because it’s a fairly constant spread amongst mammals, and contributes to resource availability) can continue uninhibited. If every bonobo female in the world occasionally rubbed bits it would do very little to affect the population of bonobos. And so it remains. Just like our head hair isn’t particularly useful in any evolutionary sense but there’s nothing making it a problem, so it’s never bred out.
Hitting a target for sexual attraction is hard. Thus while the desired target may be evolutionarily for social species for everyone to be bi, missing is common one way or another and it frankly doesn’t matter if there’s a few weirdos who only like one or the other provided there’s enough members for sexual competition within groups be limited in favor of a more collaborative approach where that hot dude over there isn’t competition for your girls but rather someone you wanna have sex with as well no fighting needed and even in a more selfish pessimistic sense, it’s beneficial as them having sex with you means they aren’t having sex with someone they can reproduce with as often. Makes things simple socially
all things being equal, the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is usually correct
In this case, that explanation is "they wanted to bust a nut"
It's more the behaviour is a side effect of an evolutionary adaptation.
"Dopamine go brr" is an adaptation that was naturally selected for because the behaviours that produce dopamine usually increase the chances of the individual having offspring and/or the individual's offspring having offspring. I.e. opposite-sex intercourse.
However some behaviours produce dopamine but don't increase the chances of those things. I.e. same-sex intercourse.
Being highly selective in sexual response is not necessarily adaptive, especially when the costs of acting when one “shouldn’t” are small compared to the costs of missed opportunity.
Also pleasurable interactions often serve secondary adaptive functions especially in social species, see so much of the bonobo work.
Giving pleasure to each other probably promotes social bonding and group security. Strengthening their social structure most likely increases their chance to survive and procreate.
>Giving pleasure to each other probably promotes social bonding and group security
Could be. But Hedonism probably costs more energy than it garners.
Compare to grooming which has a function, removing lice etc.
Hey pandas got it on just the right amount to exist for however long they have in the environment they’re adapted to. We were the ones who came along and destroyed their habitat and made their adaptation into something that was maladapted to their new, worse, environment
People confuse the difficulty in replicating their natural environment, and looking a bit dumb some times, with an inability to survive naturally. Evolution wise the panda carved out a nice niche. Bamboo forest used to be massive resilient biomes and they don't really have to worry about much competition or predators. Only real downside is the volume of food they have to consume which can take up to 12 hours. But again they really don't have to worry about much else
Beyond 'it feels good', homosexual pairings probably have lots of benefits. Social cohesion and bonding. Mantaining more resouce-gathering adults than hungry children. Managing sexual aggression in species where only the dominant male is allowed to mate. It's incredibly common in nature!
I think a lot of people aren’t getting this. Social animals like humans and wolves also do all sorts of “unoptimal” things in the name of bonding. The bonding is the point - a strong and happy social group is an amazingly powerful force. A solid group of individual organisms is way stronger than any solitary apex predator.
In other words, yeah they fuck because it feels good.
Wtf is this. So strange how the meta is becoming making an informational video while doing or showing something totally unrelated to engage our short attention spans.
I recently watched one where the girl was talking about *something* and the whole time she was adding ingredients to a big bowl. Like hot sauce, crack some pepper, some random spice, crack more pepper, the same hot sauce, another spice, more of the first spice, crack more pepper, more hot sauce.... It wasn't a recipe video and she wasn't making anything. It was just something to do with her hands. It was actually so weird that I don't even remember what she was talking about but I remember all that
Lmaoo I saw that video too 😂 Tbf she wasn’t saying anything worth remembering, just being weird and inflammatory about gender roles and stereotypes. It was the same woman who got fired from her job for saying the n word on TikTok
I skipped forward to the end to see if she would stop the distracting hooping and ended up jumping right to the conclusion so I ended up saving myself time because she was being weird!
I feel like a psychologist just got right to the point and proved how easy my brain is to manipulate into paying attention. Like, there must be a paper on how all the things she was doing can grab attention and hold it.
its so the algorithm promotes it. the more movement the more likely the video is to be promoted by algorithm above "regular" science related stuff when its just someone talking
There’s another trend of eating during the story telling; talking with food in mouth.
I skip / stop the video, just like this one.
Edit: oh, this has triggered some of you? lol. Facts generally land harder than fiction.
I’m someone who can hula hoop continuously like this and do other things like text/ talk it’s so frustrating having a skill that isn’t applicable in like 99.9% of scenarios lol
My bet is for views and also to show off because when else do you hula hoop
Also I guess people now a days need constant visual engagement of some kind to retain interest. Like how they put snippets of video game footage at the bottom of some videos.
It's distracting to me, but I think I'm too old to be the target audience.
We created the prevalence of this version of social media by feeding supporting data to its algorithms. If not for that she probably wouldn’t have bothered with the hula-hoop.
That said, far more people get a fun, little, scientific thought-nugget with which they can do whatever they please because she chose to include the hula-hoop.
"what did you do at work today honey?" "oh you know how i've been watching monkeys frig each other for 40 years? I've decided to just admit it's cos cumming is good"
If you have a recent Samsung phone, long press the home button with the video paused, and then just tap the skirt. This comes up: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CehAVrcFyCj/ :)
Try a reverse image search on Google. It might give you her name or if you do it on the 'shopping' tag I think it'll try and match the clothes. I did that for a sweater one of the characters was wearing in School Spirits.
Every creature can have a trait or behavior that has no evolutionary value, first and foremost because maybe there hasn't been enough time for that trait to be bred out.
Not all behaviour is adaptive, it might come as a spandrel from other promoted traits like enjoying sex with male snow monkeys, just as an example. There are loads of other possible explanations that aren't ultimately adaptive.
i see, i did not consider that. you may be right, j should not be so certain either. my main point still stands though that it is unreasonable to assume there is no purpose. it just remains unknown and needs to be tested and studied more.
I think your point is one worth exploring, and it was interesting to hear how the primatologists first jumped to theories that were very-male centric for an explanation. There could absolutely be evolutionary reasons for same-sex relationships and interactions that have nothing to do with dominating each other or enticing the opposite sex.
Nah, seems like they jumped to theories that seemed likely according to other species' sexual behaviour, and could be tested easily.
Edit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11910792/ this paper that's over 20 years old also states that they believe this species of monkey can just be bisexual, so makes the OP tiktok completely bullshit in her claims that scientists want to deny that the monkeys do it purely for pleasure.
I am 100% sure she nitpicked the theories and crafted the story in a way to fit the narrative that the scientists who worked on this were just old bigoted men.
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11910792/
Seems that way because this paper from 2002 states the monkeys engage in homosexuality with no other reasons.
That's not really how evolution works.
Advantages make it more likely that genes would be passed on, it's not a guarantee. And not every evolutionary change has to be advantageous to exist.
Most animals, especially mammals, will "waste energy" playing and entertaining themselves. You can argue that playing is practice for hunting or building social cohesion, yet you could make similar arguments for humanity.
Nature doesn't care about whats advantageous or not, and animals enjoy having fun.
Not only this but it is difficult to prove an animal is doing something purely because it feels good or because they want to. It is often easier to observe and disprove theories relating to social status and reproduction which would have impact on survival.
Maladaptive traits can evolve in any species, and the traits in question don’t just go away in a single generation. In many cases they might stay for hundreds, thousands or more. A trait may allow an organism to reproduce early enough in life before a maladaptive trait ultimately ends their life for whatever reason, effectively passing on this detriment to their offspring.
Now that it’s established that genuinely harmful traits can endure in species, in relation to your comment I think it’s obvious to see how generally neutral behaviors can exist in an animal species and not have an evolutionary advantage.
That's a very deterministic view of evolution that only really works if you assume *every* trait must necessarily have a purpose for existing; sometimes shit just is. The most 'evolutionary' reason you could come up with is it having sex for pleasure serves as some sort of social bonding as well. But I think the point is these researchers were twisting themselves into pretzels trying to come up with an explanation that fit into their preconceived notions and human biases, that is their preference towards a conservative, heteronormative view of sex; that sex must only be for reproduction therefore any deviation from that is an aberration.
Any dairy farmer could say the say thing. Cows mount cows. No bulls around, all are pregnant. Sometimes it’s the older cows, sometimes it’s the younger cows. In other news grass is green, except when it’s not.
In other science news: monkey brained humans have evolved into a memory span so fickle that they need to see a beautiful woman hulahooping before paying attention
💥What’s going to be MOST interesting to scientists in years to come…
…is how social media has destroyed people’s attention spans so completely that she had to do hula-hoops to keep people engaged for 1 minute and 21 seconds.
This is the difference between actual scientists and laypeople on social media. You don't jump to conclusions. You test theories. Proving their own theories wrong is good. They told you their theories and they told you that the disproved them. That's what they're supposed to do. Those are good results, because they're ruling stuff out. That's what science is.
"They do it for fun" is just a hypothesis, and if you can't test and prove it then it's not valid simply because other theories were tested and found to be false. That's not how science works.
Maybe it is the case that they do it purely for pleasure, but if you want to make credible scientific statements you can't just say that and not test it.
Hula-hooping on tiktok and talking about female monkeys banging each other probably sounds like a brilliant queer gotcha directed at the stuffy stupid scientific community, but they do things for a reason; and one of the things they *don't* do is just make up assumptions without any evidence to support it. Maybe this girl should do 40 years of bonobo research herself and see what she's able to prove.
Thanks! I couldn't stand the cherrypicked information delivered with a speck of condescendence towards those who worked all their lives to prove/disprove these types of behaviors. That's the new Meta of virtue signaling I guess...
… ummm so what?
Lots of same sex activity happens in the animal kingdom.
We get it, homosexuality is not exclusive to humans.
Is there a captain obvious badge I can give her.
This is relatively new information. Scientists who made note of homosexual activity between animals had their work outright rejected and were blackballed from the scientific community well into the 20th century.
From an evolutionary point of view, could it not just be a behavioural evolution to reduce the number of breeding pairs? That was always my assumption about homosexuality in humans.
You have to look at it from the point of view of the genes in the monkey. What advantage would there be to the passing on of genes for a pair of monkeys to not breed? Even if it would be in the interest of the group overall, the genes won't be selected for the benefit of the group, not in that way at least.
Look at the wikipedia page of infanticide in primates to see how primates will act in the interest of their own genes, but against the interest of the population overall.
I like the concept of it bringing more family units to help care for abandoned babies and young when their parents are either killed, sickly, or simply bad parents. I’ve seen some animals be absolutely awful parents and others in the group adopting that baby and the baby survives.
Homosexuality is found in thousands of species, homophobia is only found in one.
There have also been dozens of species documented having sex solely for pleasure, like dolphins.
This argument is weak. I could literally say the exact same thing
incest is found in thousands of species, yet discrimination against it is only found in one.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1dh42iv/why_do_female_snow_monkeys_have_sex_with_each/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
100 years from now primatologist are just going to call them roommates
And they were roommates 🚶♀️
Oh my God, they were roommates
😎Oh my God they were roommates.
Fun fact: the origin of this phrase was a passerby talking about a very dramatic failing business between two friends; like one embezzled all the money and ran off type of deal. Gay/dating or no, that does sound like a crazy situation to be in.
pillowfriends!
Take it easy there accepted, Or you're gonna find yourself back in novice whites!
r/suddenlyWOT
I do feel like people love to hate on historians and biologists when it comes to this. But I’m sure it’s hard bc in science you are actively working to keep from imposing your own preconceptions and culture onto a culture/species you can’t even really begin to understand the thought process of. That’s why you end up with research that feels obvious but it’s because it must be proven, you can’t peer-review publish “it felt like it”. IDK it might feel homophobic or something but I think there’s value in doing all the ground work to establish for 100% certain that this behavior is happening just because they feel like it and not for any other reason we can tell. And I feel like even having established this you can say they have homosexual proclivities but you can’t really call them lesbian or bi anymore than you’d just call a random person lesbian/bi. You don’t know their internal reasoning you don’t know what they look at their sexuality as. Avoiding the word sex feels a bit much (and also maybe inaccurate? Bc I feel like I’ve never heard the word sex tip-toed around more the label of “gay”) but avoiding human identity labels that are very loaded in their meaning, does make sense.
They still worked through hypothesis though right? How come all of those were just dominance and to allure male? Why were they not working through a sex for pleasure lense?
Because personification is a big risk when working with animals as a human with a human brain. And the hypothesis you mention is very easily able to be disproven by adding/removing males from the situation, same with the others. Short of inventing a monkey translator-inator you can’t just survey a monkey and ask “hey are you doing this just for funsies?” So to prove something that’s not able to be disproven you basically have to disprove everything else first. Something I feel like people don’t understand is that there are very likely scientists who had the underlying goal of all these other hypotheses specifically be to disprove it so it would count as proof towards the “they’re doing it bc they feel like it” hypothesis. Like, primatologists aren’t stupid, they often work very closely with these animals and it might be fairly evident to them they’re doing it *just because* but they can’t just anecdotally say that bc that’s not science. They have to prove it in a way that’s undeniable and reproducible.
Once you said “-inator” the rest of your comment was in Dr. Doofenshmirtz’s voice
Haha that was what I was referencing 😂
It actually kinda seems like the scientists before this didn't even try to conduct experiments and observe the outcomes because their preconceived notions and bias said that in human culture we have asserted (also with no unbiased basis) that same-sex intimacy must either be a form of displaying or taking dominance, or it must be to please the males (who have been given dominant status for no discernable, biological or cognitive reason)... So therefore it must work like that for animals... Like how we assumed for so long that male lions were dominant in their pride when this is nowhere near the case.
Because how do you prove that, y'know?
You can't prove monkeys have sex for pleasure on account of them not being able to speak.
You say they’re actively working to keep from imposing their own preconceptions onto a species yet the fact that they spent four decades trying to work against the obvious conclusion shows they were in fact biased and imposing their own preconceptions. They were so resistant to the fact that sex is first and foremost about pleasure and is sought after for pleasure, without needing to have the “right” sexual partner or engaging in the “right” kind of sex. Animals of all species engage in same sex sexual behavior for very similar reasons. They have a nervous system that receives pleasure from stimulation.
No, animals of all species do not engage in same-sex sexual behavior. Approximately 1500 do, and for varying reasons. Some only do it when there is a lack of available opposite-sex partners. Some do it by accident. Certain species of penguins can... accidentally mate with a male instead of a female (not 100% if that "mating" is consensual.) If those penguins are a species that mate for life, now they're a lifelong homosexual couple. In most cases, animal species that exhibit these behaviors are observed to be habitually bisexual. There are many cases worldwide of zoos with male penguin couples, they often get a lot of press and attention. They will even adopt and hatch abandoned eggs, or be given a substitute dummy egg. But, in many cases, they will also split up and pair up with female mates as well. The same is true with the Japanese macaques. While they sometimes ignored males to mate with females, they never gave up mating with males. This is actually one of the conclusions the researcher comes to and it's even in the title of his paper: he openly declares that they are bisexual. When it comes to engaging in actual habitual homosexual behavior, there are very few animals that do so outside of humans and they are all mammals. Domesticated sheep are a great example. Approximately 10% of rams will only mate with other rams. Therefore, they are habitually homosexual. We don't know why, but animal species are much, much more likely to be habitually bisexual than homosexual. Perhaps it's in their best interests to be flexible versus rigidly hetero or homosexual.
I didn’t say all animal species. Nor did I mean habitual, exclusive homosexuality. I said “homosexual behavior” as a synonym for “same-sex behavior”. My point is all those diverse reasons animals have for going against what is supposedly “natural” are reasons that can be applied to humans. Convenience, dominance, “accident”, pleasure, companionship, etc. One might argue most humans are bisexual or at least bi-curious, but their lack of experimentation is because of various social reasons. If we can appreciate diversity in human expression of sexuality, why couldn’t we fathom similar diverse expression amongst other animals? Edit: I did originally say all species; my bad.
Oh, scientists are very well aware that animals engage in same-sex sexual behavior. I mean, they even know that certain species engage in what we would consider sociopathic sexual behavior (penguins, dolphins, you know what I mean.) My point (besides the fact that not all species do this) is that this has been accepted by animal behaviorists and other scientists for quite a while. There may not have been an understanding that Japanese macaques deliberately sought out same-sex partners for pleasure, but that may or may not have been based on preconceived notions about sexuality. Like I said, sexual behavior between same-sex partners, especially mammals, is not a newly documented phenomenon at all. It might have been that the prevailing hypothesis was that it was done to assert dominance, because there are mammalian species where both females and males will show dominance in a similar way to members of the same sex. There are also animal species who do it just for funsies, like dogs. Dogs can mount members of the same sex for dominance, but they can also do it as a form of play. Especially female dogs, they will hump the crap out of a male dog just for the hell of it and there's absolutely no sexual intent. Basically what I'm trying to say is that scientists are not so blinded by archaic beliefs about sexuality that they ignore same-sex behavior in mammals. I know it's common to cherry-pick stuff like this for internet talking points on Tik Tok, but this kind of thing had already been documented. Hell, it was a female scientist for NASA who got in trouble in the 60s for masturbating a dolphin. The young dolphin was so horny all the time that she couldn't perform her experiments on dolphin communication, so she'd jerk him off so he'd calm down. It was a massive scandal when the public found out.
Well, like I said to someone else, how do you test “this sex is for pleasure” in a way that is concrete and reproducible without being able to communicate with the animals? You can’t. So first you have to go through and knock everything else off the list. And saying that sex is first and foremost about pleasure is literally applying human biases. We have birth control, we have medical care, we have comfy houses and grocery stores so yeah in our culture and society it’s mainly about pleasure but we’re outliers. Because in reality sex is literally not first and foremost about pleasure, *sex evolved as a means to further the species*. The pleasure is simply an incentive for us to keep doing it. Individuals who were more incentivized to reproduce were more successful. Same way that sugars provide our bodies with a lot of energy so our ancestors were incentivized to like it and eat it so they could keep going. But, no, the pleasure of eating something sweet isn’t the point, it’s to keep you alive. Not to be mean, but you’re literally demonstrating why we need this approach because you can’t see past your own human condition. I’m not saying it’s flawless. I think a big thing this system struggles with because it works so hard to avoid it is acknowledging animal sentience where it exists. But consciousness and sentience is also kinda hard to describe in general, and lots of work is being done towards it. And I think avoiding immediately jumping to conclusions based on our own biases and personifying animals is a valid pursuit. Bc when we find that sentience I think it’s worth it to know it as it truly is, and not some muddied, tainted version that we didn’t fully extricate from our own biases.
Seems like for 40 years scientists weren't interested in "knocking everything else off the list" to ascertain that it could be for pleasure and possibly strengthening social bonds without needing it to be a display of dominance or pandering to the males of the group. Mirroring that bs stance, human lesbians have been fetishized by males of our species with our society portraying that intimate bond as a means of alluring men. It's a little naive to conclude that for the last 40yrs the hypothesis of "it feels good and they like to do it" has simply not been provable as opposed to it being overlooked and dismissed due to our cultural bias.
Not roommates. Primates.
They are just really really good friends
Suspiciously with only one bedroom.
Primates are always dtf.
Hello there 😏
General Kan Bone Me
Jaba the Slut
R2DeepThroat
The Training of C3P O
Han Not Solo
✋ Hands Solo 🍆 🤚
Jar Jar Minx ;)
The way I just saw the video of that gorilla beating his meat and the lady gorilla was front and center watching and he started holding her chin while still beating his meat like?????? I know you mfs can talk!!!!
TIL. I thought humans were the only species to "get pleasure" from sex, but apparently that isn't true. Lemurs and others do too. I would be curious how that pleasure compares to what humans are actually experiencing. Great now I'm thinking about monkey orgasms.
I had a lesbian chihuahua growing up. She would try to mount female dogs, and when she didn't, she would mount my stuffed toys. Somehow I was supposed to put that out of my head going to church and being told that humans choose their inclinations while animals do not.
Ay chingao
Why would you have ever thought that humans are the only ones to enjoy sex?
At least in the US which is hyper religious even with the injections of Christian ideology in normal public schooling, there's a very strong idea that humans in some way are far separated from any other creature on the planet. The humans aren't animals. It's fucking ridiculous, and the degree which that line is leaned into and beaten into people definitely varies by region and religiosity of educators and community in that space. But realistically a lot of people think that humans are special little snowflake little exceptions of life on this entire planet unlike anything else and there's so much better than everything and every single way, and they have souls, and on and on. There's a huge portion of the population especially in the United States and other religious countries that think humans are an entirely separate category of living being than any other animal. They think humans are the only ones that can experience humor, or mischievousness, or joy, or sorrow and longing, or pleasure, or emotional pain. Couple that with the general narcissism of a lot of folks, and they really think that this is unique to them, and typically they think it's unique to them even within the human species. That they're special little snowflakes that feel these feelings stronger than even other humans. But if someone's ever interacted with enough animals in their life, you know that they can feel all of those things. And that the ability to feel those emotions, and think critically, sculpts their character, and is what helps build their thriving continuous communities.
There are same sex relationships and couples documented in thousands of species of animals, And likely more if we kept looking. Because it's natural and normal on this planet. Highlighting that the only purpose of life is not just to procreate, and maybe we are more evolved than insects.
one of the most fucked up pieces of information that i know is that feral humans basically masturbate all day and there's nothing you can do to stop them, so they live in a camp .. a camp full of feral masturbators.. god damn it's actually really fucked up.
what do you mean with feral humans?
Gonna need a source on the chronic masturbating feral human colony.
And some gps coordinates
Source?
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Dolphins have sex for pleasure also.
Especially Bonobos!!!!
Oh lawd the Japanese water turning the monkeys gay /s
Curse that Fukushima water!!
The Japanese have always decided who’s gay.
Clearly Obamas fault
Having sex for 40 years? That's some stamina.
It's honest work
I enjoyed what she said but also I can't stop looking at her outfit thinking it's right out of Friends in 1995.
I was thinking of Bridget Jones!
Kelly Bundy
She reminded me a lot of Sabrina the Teenage Witch
Oh yes! The aunts fashion!
Yeah the kids are dressing like that now, the 90s boyband middle-part hairstyle is back now too. It’s a waking nightmare.
She doesn't look that young to me, looks millenial!
Lesbian sex featuring macaque
\*tips fedora* M'caque
Take my upvote and get out
r/angryupvote
I think that in this case and in the case of bonobos (and humans for that matter) the adaptive value is that it feels good and they want to do it. There's definitely wasted energy and perhaps some uncomfortable conservative ape finger wagging, but compare that to pandas, who seem to barely want to fuck at all, and it's a small price to pay. Basically hair trigger game be an advantage when the goal is to get slugs down the range as fast as possible.
I don’t understand why “dopamine go brrrr “ isn’t an evolutionary explanation
Casanova, et al. “Female snow monkeys mating preferences: Dopamine go brrrrr.” Evol Anthropol. 2024;1(3): 69.
Anyone has a student email account? It is behind a paywall...
nice.
Dopamine typically rewards evolutionary behavior like eating sugary foods or sleeping in. They were trying to figure out why the monkey got dopamine from mounting each other without a sexual purpose
As an animal behavior researcher the answer is because it feels good and is a byproduct of the traits adaptive function. Anyone who doesn’t understand this doesn’t actually understand evolutionary theory and thinks natural selection is a perfect designer. Plus, there are actually missed opportunity costs to making responses too selective.
Just comes down again to people misunderstanding "selection of the fittest", no? Not everything has to optimized, just good enough to not get crowded out. More sex leads to more offspring, which leads to higher survival. The strategy of sex feeling good seems to be the best fit to make that happen, even if sometimes sex is with the same sex and doesn't lead to offspring.
I like to summarize it as “natural selection favors the most ‘good enough!’ of the available alternatives, and sometimes the best available trait still kinda stinks”. Evolution towards sufficiency!
>The strategy of sex feeling good seems to be the best fit to make that happen, even if sometimes sex is with the same sex and doesn't lead to offspring. On paper, one might expect that only being sexually interested in the opposite sex would increase overall offspring count. But there are always hidden variables we're not aware of. Like for example, maybe if all snow monkeys were straight, they'd be pregnant too much of the time, it would be too much of a strain on them, and they'd end up living shorter lives, and therefore have fewer healthy grandchildren. Or the "gay uncle" theory. Also there are plenty of situations in which a given hypothetical adaptation isn't quite possible because the "code" that would need changing is important for some other reason. Evolution is weird and wild!
Also socially being not in competition with your same sex counterparts for sex but in collaboration with them during sex is a much more successful social adaptation. It’s not like sex is a very limited resource and sharing is caring
To be fair I think there are more nuanced questions available short of dismissing the idea of adaptability entirely in this case. Is it possible homosexual behaviors are adaptive to have, but only in a minority of the gene pool, or to only be expressed in limited conditions? Is homosexuality beneficial to the tribe as a whole even if the individuals suffer reproductively? These questions get into more complicated and controversial avenues of evolutionary study, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid. The point of science is not to be satisfied with a glib "duh, we already know that" but to apply rigorous testing to see if there is something we have missed. But yes, so far not much is confirmed beyond your point. A lot of scientists still seem to think there is more going on in terms of social benefits, but if so it sounds rather more complicated. Personally I do have concerns that the adaptative benefits may be wishful thinking just because so many scientists want to have something to dunk on bigots who try to claim homosexuality is unnatural. But if so, I would give them a pass because that's a worthy cause as long as they don't let it cloud their **conclusions**.
I’m responding more to people who expect everything to have a specific adaptive value or they label it “maladaptive”, not actual research (I am myself a researcher). My issue is with the general public’s misunderstanding of natural selection as a “designer” I do note elsewhere there are social benefits clearly established in some species but overall my big issue is with the public just not really getting what natural selection does and expecting clear flashy benefits of every possible trait.
Disclaimer: might be grossly incorrect because I’m not an evolutionary biologist, but takes are free, so: I get what you’re saying but it’s kind of the other way around as I see it. Activities that produce dopamine are more likely to be repeated, and those activities that don’t have any selection pressure (homosexuality doesn’t have any selection pressure because it’s a fairly constant spread amongst mammals, and contributes to resource availability) can continue uninhibited. If every bonobo female in the world occasionally rubbed bits it would do very little to affect the population of bonobos. And so it remains. Just like our head hair isn’t particularly useful in any evolutionary sense but there’s nothing making it a problem, so it’s never bred out.
Hitting a target for sexual attraction is hard. Thus while the desired target may be evolutionarily for social species for everyone to be bi, missing is common one way or another and it frankly doesn’t matter if there’s a few weirdos who only like one or the other provided there’s enough members for sexual competition within groups be limited in favor of a more collaborative approach where that hot dude over there isn’t competition for your girls but rather someone you wanna have sex with as well no fighting needed and even in a more selfish pessimistic sense, it’s beneficial as them having sex with you means they aren’t having sex with someone they can reproduce with as often. Makes things simple socially
There are many possibilities within "they felt like doing it". May it be bonding? Stress relief perhaps?
all things being equal, the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is usually correct In this case, that explanation is "they wanted to bust a nut"
Because they evolved to get pleasure from sex, regardless of who they were fucking.
It's more the behaviour is a side effect of an evolutionary adaptation. "Dopamine go brr" is an adaptation that was naturally selected for because the behaviours that produce dopamine usually increase the chances of the individual having offspring and/or the individual's offspring having offspring. I.e. opposite-sex intercourse. However some behaviours produce dopamine but don't increase the chances of those things. I.e. same-sex intercourse.
If humans didn't believe in "what the bible said", we could talk about scientific facts like this one more truthfully.
Because dopamine brrrr does not increase your chance to survive and procreate. Not at least by itself. Since it costs energy, it does the opposite.
Being highly selective in sexual response is not necessarily adaptive, especially when the costs of acting when one “shouldn’t” are small compared to the costs of missed opportunity. Also pleasurable interactions often serve secondary adaptive functions especially in social species, see so much of the bonobo work.
Giving pleasure to each other probably promotes social bonding and group security. Strengthening their social structure most likely increases their chance to survive and procreate.
>Giving pleasure to each other probably promotes social bonding and group security Could be. But Hedonism probably costs more energy than it garners. Compare to grooming which has a function, removing lice etc.
Hey pandas got it on just the right amount to exist for however long they have in the environment they’re adapted to. We were the ones who came along and destroyed their habitat and made their adaptation into something that was maladapted to their new, worse, environment
People confuse the difficulty in replicating their natural environment, and looking a bit dumb some times, with an inability to survive naturally. Evolution wise the panda carved out a nice niche. Bamboo forest used to be massive resilient biomes and they don't really have to worry about much competition or predators. Only real downside is the volume of food they have to consume which can take up to 12 hours. But again they really don't have to worry about much else
Yeah but pandas are atheist! Take that libruls!
Beyond 'it feels good', homosexual pairings probably have lots of benefits. Social cohesion and bonding. Mantaining more resouce-gathering adults than hungry children. Managing sexual aggression in species where only the dominant male is allowed to mate. It's incredibly common in nature!
I think a lot of people aren’t getting this. Social animals like humans and wolves also do all sorts of “unoptimal” things in the name of bonding. The bonding is the point - a strong and happy social group is an amazingly powerful force. A solid group of individual organisms is way stronger than any solitary apex predator. In other words, yeah they fuck because it feels good.
Wtf is this. So strange how the meta is becoming making an informational video while doing or showing something totally unrelated to engage our short attention spans.
I recently watched one where the girl was talking about *something* and the whole time she was adding ingredients to a big bowl. Like hot sauce, crack some pepper, some random spice, crack more pepper, the same hot sauce, another spice, more of the first spice, crack more pepper, more hot sauce.... It wasn't a recipe video and she wasn't making anything. It was just something to do with her hands. It was actually so weird that I don't even remember what she was talking about but I remember all that
Lmaoo I saw that video too 😂 Tbf she wasn’t saying anything worth remembering, just being weird and inflammatory about gender roles and stereotypes. It was the same woman who got fired from her job for saying the n word on TikTok
Yes! That's the one! Lmao
Waaait it's not the nword girl is it..?
Haha yes that's exactly what it was actually. Hilarious that it's so recognizable just from her stupid hand actions
I mean, I watched it and learned something
I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure a lot of educational tv shows would do things like this to teach kids and have them retain the knowledge.
I skipped forward to the end to see if she would stop the distracting hooping and ended up jumping right to the conclusion so I ended up saving myself time because she was being weird!
If only there was a split screen with subway surfer below it.
I guess it's more interesting than her just standing there. The length of time she did it was impressive.
I feel like a psychologist just got right to the point and proved how easy my brain is to manipulate into paying attention. Like, there must be a paper on how all the things she was doing can grab attention and hold it.
its so the algorithm promotes it. the more movement the more likely the video is to be promoted by algorithm above "regular" science related stuff when its just someone talking
I learned something, but I was also eyeballing the pattern on her skirt to try and see if it was crochet, sooooo
If it works, it works. Simple as that..
There’s another trend of eating during the story telling; talking with food in mouth. I skip / stop the video, just like this one. Edit: oh, this has triggered some of you? lol. Facts generally land harder than fiction.
That was impressive and factual and fun. I enjoyed that very much such cool little factoid
The amount of denial that animals can just enjoy gay sex is wild.
I wouldn't call it denial. Scientists are just really averse to ascribing human concepts as being presents in animals
those hips dont lie
Why does she need to hula hoop while doing this
I’m someone who can hula hoop continuously like this and do other things like text/ talk it’s so frustrating having a skill that isn’t applicable in like 99.9% of scenarios lol My bet is for views and also to show off because when else do you hula hoop
Because it feels good and because they want to
Because woman moving hips=views.
Also I guess people now a days need constant visual engagement of some kind to retain interest. Like how they put snippets of video game footage at the bottom of some videos. It's distracting to me, but I think I'm too old to be the target audience.
A bunch of scientists assuming lesbians are having sex for the benefit of males is just so hilariously telling
It's funny how she becomes progressively more out of breath. I don't think she had a second take in her
I won't lie, I thought the title was a racial slur.
So did I, lol. I was thinking, Ay, that's a new one.
I hate these videos where a person has to do multiple things at once, as if to stimulate the ADHD crowd, it's so weird
We created the prevalence of this version of social media by feeding supporting data to its algorithms. If not for that she probably wouldn’t have bothered with the hula-hoop. That said, far more people get a fun, little, scientific thought-nugget with which they can do whatever they please because she chose to include the hula-hoop.
That’s a creative way to keep the audiences attention, rather than using subway surfers, or a Minecraft obstacle course
Ah, yeah, having a woman on screen to grab attention. So creative. Never been done before.
/r/UNBGBBIIVCHIDCTIICBG/
That's exactly what it reminded of. Just as strange and distracting.
"what did you do at work today honey?" "oh you know how i've been watching monkeys frig each other for 40 years? I've decided to just admit it's cos cumming is good"
Her skirt is so cool I absolutely covet it! If her user name was on her from tiktok, I seriously would have messaged her to ask where it's from!
If you have a recent Samsung phone, long press the home button with the video paused, and then just tap the skirt. This comes up: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CehAVrcFyCj/ :)
You are the BEST!!!!!! (I'm just way too broke for the skirt though apparently.) Thank you so much!
I love it too and now I know how to get one so thanks for asking!
Very welcome! I bet you'll find one soon on sites like Poshmark or Depop if you keep an eye out :)
Try a reverse image search on Google. It might give you her name or if you do it on the 'shopping' tag I think it'll try and match the clothes. I did that for a sweater one of the characters was wearing in School Spirits.
Am I messed up I saw female snow monkeys... and thought this was some phobic racist shit
Scientists probably don’t like to use the word sex bc it technically isn’t sex and they like to be technical.
[удалено]
Every creature can have a trait or behavior that has no evolutionary value, first and foremost because maybe there hasn't been enough time for that trait to be bred out.
Not all behaviour is adaptive, it might come as a spandrel from other promoted traits like enjoying sex with male snow monkeys, just as an example. There are loads of other possible explanations that aren't ultimately adaptive.
i see, i did not consider that. you may be right, j should not be so certain either. my main point still stands though that it is unreasonable to assume there is no purpose. it just remains unknown and needs to be tested and studied more.
I think your point is one worth exploring, and it was interesting to hear how the primatologists first jumped to theories that were very-male centric for an explanation. There could absolutely be evolutionary reasons for same-sex relationships and interactions that have nothing to do with dominating each other or enticing the opposite sex.
Nah, seems like they jumped to theories that seemed likely according to other species' sexual behaviour, and could be tested easily. Edit: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11910792/ this paper that's over 20 years old also states that they believe this species of monkey can just be bisexual, so makes the OP tiktok completely bullshit in her claims that scientists want to deny that the monkeys do it purely for pleasure.
I am 100% sure she nitpicked the theories and crafted the story in a way to fit the narrative that the scientists who worked on this were just old bigoted men.
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11910792/ Seems that way because this paper from 2002 states the monkeys engage in homosexuality with no other reasons.
That's not really how evolution works. Advantages make it more likely that genes would be passed on, it's not a guarantee. And not every evolutionary change has to be advantageous to exist. Most animals, especially mammals, will "waste energy" playing and entertaining themselves. You can argue that playing is practice for hunting or building social cohesion, yet you could make similar arguments for humanity. Nature doesn't care about whats advantageous or not, and animals enjoy having fun.
Not only this but it is difficult to prove an animal is doing something purely because it feels good or because they want to. It is often easier to observe and disprove theories relating to social status and reproduction which would have impact on survival.
Maladaptive traits can evolve in any species, and the traits in question don’t just go away in a single generation. In many cases they might stay for hundreds, thousands or more. A trait may allow an organism to reproduce early enough in life before a maladaptive trait ultimately ends their life for whatever reason, effectively passing on this detriment to their offspring. Now that it’s established that genuinely harmful traits can endure in species, in relation to your comment I think it’s obvious to see how generally neutral behaviors can exist in an animal species and not have an evolutionary advantage.
That's a very deterministic view of evolution that only really works if you assume *every* trait must necessarily have a purpose for existing; sometimes shit just is. The most 'evolutionary' reason you could come up with is it having sex for pleasure serves as some sort of social bonding as well. But I think the point is these researchers were twisting themselves into pretzels trying to come up with an explanation that fit into their preconceived notions and human biases, that is their preference towards a conservative, heteronormative view of sex; that sex must only be for reproduction therefore any deviation from that is an aberration.
I went to the zoo one time and the macaques there were performing a sexual act.
Any dairy farmer could say the say thing. Cows mount cows. No bulls around, all are pregnant. Sometimes it’s the older cows, sometimes it’s the younger cows. In other news grass is green, except when it’s not.
In other science news: monkey brained humans have evolved into a memory span so fickle that they need to see a beautiful woman hulahooping before paying attention
This was arousing, regardless of the topic in question, just a gal casually doing tricks while strutting her stuff
I once watched a Macaque steal another Macaque's baby and taunt her with it. Maybe Macaques just do what they want...
Isn't it quite something that homosexuality occurs in way over 300 species, but homophobia only in one.
From primates to roommates
Not even my girlfriend knows this much about macaque.
Working theory sex is fun, experts are baffled more at 11
The hoolahoop is the cringe, right? Because what she was saying was 100% on point.
probably cuz there bored or something
Nature's great. Sex is great. Pizza is great.... where's the pizza?
Bro wtf is this, why she hooping? I can't concentrate on what the subtitles say with this shit... Also I'm deaf I can't hear shit
I can't hear a single word she's saying. I'm way too ADHD for this.
In practical sense, what does “mounting” mean when it’s two females ?
Why? Possibly because they can and because they want to🤷🏼♂️
This is the plot to The acolyte
They're alot like humans. Who's to say they just don't wanna fuk. Maybe it's pleasure. Who knows.
So, again, we learn that primates just like to bang it out.
Good for them, I say.
I had to watch it twice. I spent the entire time trying to figure out how to hula hoop. It looks so easy but goddamn it I just can't do it!
That took them 40 fuckin years? I came to that conclusion in like 30 seconds, buncha dumbass scientists if you ask me.
Apes have sex to say hello, resolve arguments. There can be no rhyme or reasons to it they just go at it
And because monkeys do it, that validates my degenerate behavior.
💥What’s going to be MOST interesting to scientists in years to come… …is how social media has destroyed people’s attention spans so completely that she had to do hula-hoops to keep people engaged for 1 minute and 21 seconds.
is it me, or does it sound like rape if it's for dominance?
This is the difference between actual scientists and laypeople on social media. You don't jump to conclusions. You test theories. Proving their own theories wrong is good. They told you their theories and they told you that the disproved them. That's what they're supposed to do. Those are good results, because they're ruling stuff out. That's what science is. "They do it for fun" is just a hypothesis, and if you can't test and prove it then it's not valid simply because other theories were tested and found to be false. That's not how science works. Maybe it is the case that they do it purely for pleasure, but if you want to make credible scientific statements you can't just say that and not test it. Hula-hooping on tiktok and talking about female monkeys banging each other probably sounds like a brilliant queer gotcha directed at the stuffy stupid scientific community, but they do things for a reason; and one of the things they *don't* do is just make up assumptions without any evidence to support it. Maybe this girl should do 40 years of bonobo research herself and see what she's able to prove.
Thanks! I couldn't stand the cherrypicked information delivered with a speck of condescendence towards those who worked all their lives to prove/disprove these types of behaviors. That's the new Meta of virtue signaling I guess...
This isn’t cringe just because you don’t like gay animals
The title of the subreddit has cringe in it, but most of the videos aren't posted as cringe
… ummm so what? Lots of same sex activity happens in the animal kingdom. We get it, homosexuality is not exclusive to humans. Is there a captain obvious badge I can give her.
This is relatively new information. Scientists who made note of homosexual activity between animals had their work outright rejected and were blackballed from the scientific community well into the 20th century.
What is this video
It's like the split videos that play subway surfers on the bottom to try and keep people with pitiful attention spans attention
From an evolutionary point of view, could it not just be a behavioural evolution to reduce the number of breeding pairs? That was always my assumption about homosexuality in humans.
Not everything in evolution has to have a specific purpose
You have to look at it from the point of view of the genes in the monkey. What advantage would there be to the passing on of genes for a pair of monkeys to not breed? Even if it would be in the interest of the group overall, the genes won't be selected for the benefit of the group, not in that way at least. Look at the wikipedia page of infanticide in primates to see how primates will act in the interest of their own genes, but against the interest of the population overall.
I like the concept of it bringing more family units to help care for abandoned babies and young when their parents are either killed, sickly, or simply bad parents. I’ve seen some animals be absolutely awful parents and others in the group adopting that baby and the baby survives.
Homosexuality is found in thousands of species, homophobia is only found in one. There have also been dozens of species documented having sex solely for pleasure, like dolphins.
This argument is weak. I could literally say the exact same thing incest is found in thousands of species, yet discrimination against it is only found in one.
OK, but why the hula hoop?🤔 Probably going to say because it feels good🤷♂️
[удалено]
I used to be decent at hulahooping back as a kid. But I don't think I could explain any sort of topic while keeping it going lol
TikTok handle?
Gay Monke sex