Notes on: Bagemihl, B (1999) Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity New York: St Martin's Press  Dave Harris [He has acknowledged lots of scientists and obviously gathered a lot of information --far too many examples piledon each other leaving little chance to argue. Impossible to check or follow-up all these activities, and a great deal of work is done to generalise from them — birds may preen but not mate, chimps may kiss and not groom, dolphins can stimulate companions with sonic waves but may not hug — and yet it all adds up to homosexual or same-sex behaviour. Why have plants been left out? Proust found far more support for queer sexuality in the vegetal kingdom, where you find very frequently hermaphrodite or bisexual examples.Maybe it is that they would be particularly difficult to anthropomorphise — does japonica 'mate'. Animals are close enough to us to provide that basis of comparison. A lot of this is cheerfully positivistic, although there are some useful reservations about methods introduced. I'm amazed that Barad could accept this as authoritative, and even quote some of the dubious numbers such as the 450 queer animal species, without pointing out the obvious objections. Presumably, it must be tactical again? There clearly must be a context to the work in the eternal struggle against those who think that homosexuality is unnatural? There is some possible special pleading saying that even the apparent inferiority of lesbian couples in gaining the best conditions can be compensated by superior parenting, part of a general dithering about whether females are better carers or not. The overall point is to make us revise our stereotypes and all that, but does any observer of the contemporary human scene need that? The most obvious problems the prevalence of so many anthropomorphic terms, however, despite reservations. Is the argument that animals exhibit the same kind of sexual behaviours as humans, equally cultural, equally based on imagination, fantasy, elaborate social conventions of attraction and repulsion, legitimacy and illegitimacy, or is it that these animal elaborations and diversities can still be explained ultimately in biological and environmental terms? Problems arise for me particularly with terms like 'erotic', bearing in mind Plummer's insistence on fantasy -- humans can sexualise and desexualise anything he insists. Do animals have anything like the fetishisms or perversions arising from deliberate experimentation? Or guilt,doubts, regrets, sexual jealousy, feelings of inadequacy?  In particular, to take up one of Barad's points, do Bighorn Sheep feel any sort of ethical responsibility towards other male sheep that they might be mounting?] Cf with Barad (2012) 'Queer politics, if it is to remain queer needs to be able to perform the function of emptying [human] queerness of its referentiality or positivity, guarding against its tendency to concrete embodiment,and hereby preserving queerness as a resistant relation rather than as an oppositional substance' .The whole emphasis in Bagemihl is on the functional integration of animal queerness as it provides the innovation needed for mechanical solidarity -- a resistant relation requires a politics. Introduction it is a vast field and research is only in its infancy. There are formidable challenges. He is only considering cases where there is scientific documentation which include scientific reports observations by scientists ideally corroborated. The result is he claims 'a uniform and verifiable platform of data'. (1)The book focuses on animals and birds.. Scientific researcher has gone on for at least two centuries, but this is still a beginning. 'Any account of homosexuality and transgender in animals is also necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena. Because animals cannot speak directly for themselves the way people can, we must rely on human observations… This presents both special challenges and unique advantages… Certain behaviour such as sexual acts can be observed directly (and even quantified), which is often extremely difficult, impossible, or unethical to do in studies of sexuality among people… On the other hand, we are in the dark about the internal experiences of the animal participants: as a result, the biases and limitations of the human observer… Come to the forefront… The reverse of what occurs in some studies of homosexuality among people' (2). In particular we can get no data about emotional and motivational states. Contentious theories are chronic. This is a 'unique historical moment'.  We need to present technical material to a nonspecialist readership, but there is also a lack of awareness among scientists. Hence this structure of this book — full documentation in notes and references, but the technical material can be skipped. Terminology is a particular problem. We have to go between 'more accessible but overtly anthropomorphic or loaded vernacular', and more neutral but highly technical jargon on the other. He has chosen homosexuality and same-sex rather than gay and lesbian which are 'burdened with human connotations (cultural, psychological, historical, and/or political)' (3). Occasionally these terms are used only for expedience, but they are used increasingly by scientists in scholarly publications, lesbian more than gay. There is some discussion of trends, including transsexuality, in the zoological literature 'with meanings largely divorced from their human connotations'. Even using the term homosexual can be anthropomorphic, ignoring culture and historical constructions with particular human connotations. Other terms widely used including monogamy or heterosexual, 'carry the same baggage of human referents'. There may be more variation within the species than between them. The continued use of these terms is justified in chapter 3. More generally, meanings are extended explicitly and sometimes human connotations are disavowed. The same problems applied to heterosexual behaviour. Terminological debates themselves are historical and turn on what counts as appropriate, no terminology 'is entirely free of human (cultural, historical, etc) associations' (4), but the approach chosen here is not to invent you terminology but use the usual terms having offered 'careful qualification of their meanings and understanding of their historical context, such that they become uncoupled from the anthropomorphic connotations'. [Then the chapters are summarised. Particular explanations are challenged in particular such as that 'homosexuality might contribute to heterosexual reproduction'(5). The book ends with a call for a radical rethink, based on 'traditional beliefs about animal homosexuality/transgender in indigenous cultures… Western science has a lot to learn from aboriginal cultures'. New sciences including chaos theory might also be able to make a contribution. The point is to make animal homosexuality explicable. So examining sexual variants will 'offer a key to a new way of looking at the world, symbolic of the larger paradigms shifts'. It is 'rooted in the basic facts', however, but there is also an attempt to capture '"poetry" as well', where diversity is 'one particular form of natural beauty' and as such will inspire 'wonder, and… awe' Chapter 1 We start with Haldane's quote on the queer universe. Apparently actual results show 130 different kinds of bird species worldwide 'literally are queer'[so being defined in terms of sexual diversity']. Queer animals seek each other out, caught each other, show 'tenderness and affection towards one another', form pair bonds or just 'meet briefly for sex'(12) [lots of pages devoted to maps and pictures]. Same sex relationships are common. Some transgendered activity involves 'involves crossing or combining characteristics of both males and females in their appearance or behaviour'. Homosexual behaviour 'occurs in more than 450 different kinds of animals' worldwide [but see the reservations below] . It is not a singular phenomenon but displays 'every conceivable variation'. Homosexuality may mean just sex, but animals also show 'major behavioural categories, courtship, affection, sex, pair bonding, and parenting'. Homosexuality is indeed 'defined as the same activities when they occur between animals of the same sex' however, 'the notion of identity is inappropriate to ascribe to animals' so we can only focus on behaviours, although we might be able to 'describe individuals whose primary "orientation" is towards animals of the same sex'. Homosexuality can have 'specific meanings independent of their human connotations' as well. There can be bisexuality, 'when a particular individual engages in both homosexual and heterosexual activity' Courtship behaviour involves advertising one's presence to prospective mates. Mutual interest might lead to mating and possibly pair bonding, or specific sexual activity. Homosexual forms occur 'in nearly 40% of the mammals and birds in which same-sex activity has been observed' (13). There can be many forms, such as dances acrobatics, poses [all of these are detailed], synchronised displays. Sometimes they take place in specific 'display courts' for hetero and homo interactions [lots more detail], sometimes to take advantage of the characteristics of the light. There might be different sounds, sometimes produced in unusual ways. Again these are found in 'same-sex courtship' (15). There may even be 'sonic "foreplay"' where dolphins stimulate each other's genitals with soundwaves'. Sometimes same-sex courtship will only show a subset of these overall behaviours. Some have special courtship patterns — pirouette dances for homo ostriches, games of hide and seek for female macaques doing 'lesbian interactions'. There is also a lot of touching which may not be sexual involving the genitals but which still have 'clear sexual or erotic overtones' (16) — 'affectionate activities', and these are found in a quarter of homosexual activity. 'Their erotic nature in a same-sex context is usually obvious: the two animals may be visibly sexually aroused' [and in other cases?] and might lead to homosexual copulation. Activities include grooming or rubbing, and 'some animals also "kiss" each other' (16), touching mouths or muzzles or bills this 'can bear a startling resemblance to the corresponding human activity', for example there may be mouth-to-mouth contact '"passionate" openmouthed kisses'. There may be hugging or clasping. There may be play fights 'that have erotic overtones' (17), and which do not display particular physical violence. Elephants can become sexually aroused, who could animals can mount each other, sometimes it leads to sexual encounters. Some animals bite or chew parts of their partners, suck each other's nipples, pat each other's bottoms, grasp each other's penises. There may be unique behaviour such as necking in male giraffes. Sometimes multiple animals are involved 'in near "orgies" of bodily contact' (18). These display 'unabashedly sensual and playful aspects' and this is 'actually reflected in the descriptive names given to them by zoologists' [reflected, note], sometimes with specially coined nonsense words. Overtly sexual behaviour is 'defined here as any contact between two or more animals involving genital stimulation'. Mounting is the most common type, and it is found in homosexual contexts too. Particular forms may be more common in homosexual encounters. There may be unusually creative mounting positions, especially with female animals. Some animals 'mount their female partner from the side rather than from behind; lateral mounts also sometimes occur during heterosexual interactions'. Group activity 'occurs in over 25 different species'. There may be different kinds of genital contact, including the insertion of fingers into the vagina in lesbian orang utans, erect clitorises, fins and tail flukes, wrapping and thrusting. There may not be anal penetration — some dolphins have an additional genital slit, penises may be inserted into blowholes, or into specially created concavities. There may be oral sex, including 'actual sucking of genitals' among male Bonabo, or licking among sheep and vampire bats [loads of examples all of them uncheckable, all asserted to be the same kind of general behaviour]. There may also be masturbation, stimulating genitals with 'the finger, hand, foot, flipper, or some other appendage' (20), mutual masturbation, or dry humping. There may be significant pair bonds with animals of the same sex — partners and companions, depending on whether sex is involved or not. Partnership involves 'a significant amount of time with each other and they do similar activities together' (21). Partnerships may become consortships or sexual friendships, even coalitions. Many will be 'exclusive or monogamous' and ven lead to action to defend the pair bond. There may be competition for homosexual/same-sex partners, although some birds apparently also promiscuously copulate and develop non-monogamous pairs. Companionship is found in a number of animals, sometimes involving 'younger same-sex attendants' (22). Sometimes animals form a trio. They may be bisexual with significant bonding or sexual behaviour with same-sex partners, as well as heterosexual trios, or same-sex trios. Pair bonds seem to last as long as they do with heterosexuals [at least in the example of the Greylag Goose or Ocellated Antbirds]. Sometimes the only pair bonds that occur will be homosexual. 'Same-sex pairs in many species (especially birds) raise young together' (23) at least as competently as heterosexual pairs. They managed to achieve parenting in various ways e.g. both female partners will copulate with a male 'who is essentially a "sperm donor" to the homosexual pair'. Both females will lay eggs in 'supernormal clutches'. Sometimes parents bond homosexually, and sometimes offspring are raised by single females [with another lengthy bizarre list]. There can be egg donors as well. Young can also be adopted. Apparently some cross species with birds. Sometimes same-sex pairs kidnap nests from heterosexual pairs or steal eggs. There are apparently 'no significant differences in quality of care' (25) and success in raising young by same-sex pairs can even exceed heterosexual ones [because dominant males can get better conditions, at least with black swans]. Inferior conditions can be compensated by more parental effort [same sex must never be inferior] . Sometimes a nest is built together, often in the same way as heterosexual pairs, but sometimes with variations – "twin" or "joint" nests', larger nests. Sometimes young are raised by mixed sex polygamist groups 'where their mothers may have lesbian interactions with each other' (26. There are other family constellations including three mothers or for animals, and single parents. Homosexual behaviour, especially in geese, display 'some of the major patterns of male and female homosexuality and the range of variation found throughout the rest of the animal world'. With Canada geese, male and females participate equally in homosexual activity, but there are some 'gender differences' in certain behaviours. Characteristically females tend to participate more in same-sex pairings, females form longer lasting pair bonds, in some geese homosexual activity is exclusively male, but overall 'male homosexuality is slightly more prevalent' (27). However this may indicate 'the general male bias of many biological studies'. Different species display different frequencies of copulation. There may be 'gender differences… Apparent in various behaviour types' (28) although again maybe gender bias. There are variations in the combinations of different activities. Mounting appears to be ubiquitous, oral sex is equally prevalent, group sexual activities more common in males, actual penetration may be more common in male homosexuals. Sexual positions may vary. Apparently, long lasting pair bonds are 'generally not more characteristic of females' (29) [except in the specific cases mentioned earlier?] 'Non-monogamy and divorce' are found equally between male and female couples. Japanese macaque apparently offer particular variants across a range of behaviours, showing that 'the complex intersection of factors is involved in the expression of homosexuality in each gender'. We must revise our preconceived ideas, and resist stereotypes. Some sets of behaviours 'defy any simplistic categorisation' (30) [but no hint the need for something performative, at least as yet]. There is a beautiful formula to calculate the frequency of homosexual behaviour in the gull population, and careful records taken of frequencies of things like homosexual mounts between females among Kob antelopes [reminds me an awful lot of Masters and Johnson]. We can determine the rates of homosexuality — 'the number of homosexual acts performed during a given period of time', and 8 female Kob antelopes were studied for 67 hours and then compared to 36 male longtailed Hermit hummingbirds [positivism gone absolutely fucking nuts --Barad cannot approve of this surely?]. Of course we will need to know what might be the normal rate of sexual activity, so we should really compare homosexual with heterosexual acts and see homosexual activity 'as a proportion of all sexual activity' (31). When we do this with Kob antelopes, we find that there's quite a high rate of sexual activity with homosexual mounts at 'only 9% of all sexual activity' whereas with hummingbirds it is 25%. We need to explore the factors involved before we can generalise [we already have]. In terms of the total number of species, it is 'over 450' that have documented same-sex behaviour [of the activities defined above], although 'over 1 million species are known to exist'. For mammals and birds, the figures are 300 in a total of 13,000. So far, however only a few species have been studied and we need detailed study, perhaps 'at least 1000 hours of field observation' before we can describe unusual but important activities. We don't know 'how many species have been studied to this depth' — perhaps only one or 2000. That would still leave '15 to 30% of animal species exhibiting homosexual behaviour'. The percentage may be higher because it is easy to miss common behaviours [which might include exclusively heterosexual behaviour] — for example in nocturnal or elusive species, and there are also 'problems in identifying individual animals'. For example in some species, heterosexual mating 'has never been seen', or seen only rarely, in one case only once. Cheetahs are particularly shy and they have only been observed copulating in the wild five times. New findings appear all the time, including some of those described here, and much was unknown until the late 1990s. The point is that if we insisted on empirical verification, we would 'have to conclude that many species never engage in heterosexuality' either. In some cases, we know more about homo than hetero [observer bias here?] : hetero might be more difficult to observe. It is quite wrong to see homosexuality as rare, or even as regular, especially 'without any numerical or contextual information' (33) and we also need a common standard of measurement and agreed points of references. At the moment there are examples of various 'tallies of particular behaviours'. Sometimes innovative techniques have had to be developed — for example noticing that supernormal clutches of eggs indicate lesbian activity [the great equation is based on that finding.]. Injuries might indicate mating. There are still subjective commentaries on the same sort of quantitative data — one zoologist thought that 7% homosexual copulations indicated that this was common, while another insisted the same finding showed it was rare. We also need an activity or time budget to assess the proportion of activity or time — because some species interact infrequently with everybody. Overall, the population engaged in homosexuality varies widely. For all these reasons 'it is not always a straightforward matter to calculate various measures of frequency such as these', and three particularly problematic species are discussed. 'Observational methodologies' might also have an effect (35). However, despite all the difficulties it is possible to generalise about homosexual activity at least in three categories — 'courtship, sexual, and pair bonding'. So on average 25% of individuals engage in these activities, ranging from 2 to 3% to entire troops [of Bonabo]. About 25% of courtship activity specifically is homosexual, and about the same for sexual activity, ranging from 1 to 94%. Same-sex pair bonding accounts for an average of 14% of all pairs. Combining all together gives an overall figure of 20% homosexual mammal and bird activities, and this is taken to be perhaps the best number. It 'collapses the multiplicity of behaviours… Represents only a fraction of the animals which homosexuality is been documented… Glosses over many observational and theoretical uncertainties… Misleadingly equates often radically unlike phenomena' (36) so we might need to abandon the whole attempt and acknowledge that there is no single formula. 'In the end though we must acknowledge that our measures are at best imperfect — and what we are attempting to quantify is, in many senses, incalculable'. We can challenge the conventional view that there are two sexes. There is 'considerably richer' arrangement than that. Sometimes females can become males, sometimes there are no males, sometimes there are males that are both male and female, or mails that resemble males, and same-sex activity, a 'a wide variety of alternative sexualities and genders', even 'transvestism or transsexuality'. There may be hermaphroditism, parthogenic species, crossing of existing gender categories, imitating the opposite sex or physically becoming the opposite sex, or combining characteristics of both sexes. Hermaphrodite does not cover all the possibilities, although there are such species which have both sets of reproductive organs. There need to be two distinct sexes first to get 'proper' homosexuality [note the current controversies unaddressed here — 'in transsexuality, individuals actually become the opposite sex… Transvestism… 'Can involve almost total physical resemblance between males and females or mimicry of only certain… Characteristics' (38). Activities can involve growing parts of the body that help imitation, or adopting typical behaviours. Not all homosexuality is transvestism, for example even though it might feature. [Note that there might appear to be something akin to rape at least among Bighorn Sheep, because females 'do not permit themselves to be mounted by males except when they are in heat'(39)  — and so do homosexual males]. Sex change is another 'routine aspect of many animals' lives', again with different variations requiring different terminology according to who changes into what and how. It can be quite complex. As a result 'striped parrotfish have… Five distinct genders' but only two biological sexes (41). Particular patterns of mating and social organisation that accompanies it may be complex as well. Some fish can be both transsexual and transvestite again producing 'an even more complex gender system', and some fish begin as one sex and turn into the other — and sometimes back the other way. What this all shows is that animals actually have 'incredibly sophisticated and complex systems of social organisation and behavioural patterning in many species' (42), far from a simple interaction between two sexes. There is animal homosexuality and it is 'a rich and multifaceted phenomenon that is at least as complex and varied as heterosexuality'. Sometimes there are special behaviour patterns. Homosexual animals can be 'both affectionate and sexual towards one another' and use different techniques from kissing to anal intercourse. Pair bonds can also vary in many ways, and young can be raised in all sorts of different family configurations. Overall, 'the lives of "queer" animals are far more diverse than we could ever have imagined'. Chapter 2 Lots of animals appear to court and seek out each companions from the same-sex. Zoologists drift into anthropomorphism by giving them names or human qualities, with the intention of reminding us of individuality. In fact 'there are a number of genuine connections and points of correspondence between animal and human homosexuality as well as significant differences' (44). There are problems in extrapolating from one to the other. Some people think that homosexuality is uniquely human. Primate homosexuality can offer insights though. 'Overall, a cautionary note must be sounded' because there is richness and complexity in both animals and human. There is a variety of forms of human homosexuality as we know, and the forms are shaped by social and historical contexts [for example ancient Greeks]. There is a counterpart for nearly every form in animals. However, there is a general 'lack of an adequate understanding and classification of different types of homosexuality', and many different animal behaviours have been seen as similar to specific human ones — 'analogies'. [Barad would reject these of course]. In each case, there is often 'the conflation of many different behaviour variables and diverse patterns' with animals and humans. We also need to consider 'consensuality, age, gender presentations of partners' (45) to generate even more complexity Homosexuality can be seen as behaviour arranged on one axis representing gender-based and role-based interaction, another referring to age relationships, another to sexual orientation of participants, and another to do with the social status of the activity (whether sanctioned or condemned). Using these 'typological axes' [for our purposes] we can show a comparable variability between humans and animals. Culture alone does not explain the diversity of human homosexuality, since a capacity for '"sexual plasticity"' may be biological and shared with other species. Animal cultures might be seen in terms of anything that exceeds genetic programming — individual habit, learned behaviour, community '"traditions"'. Generally speaking, most human activities have an analogue among animals — laughing, killing, female orgasm and so on. The specifics of homosexual interactions might be different — for example people can engage in exclusive homosexuality, have more varied sexual motivations, and react with hostility to sexual deviants [a crucial difference -- see above] . Generally, we are still learning about animals, but we know enough to suspect human uniqueness and exceptionalism. Take exclusive or preferred homosexuality. There may be exclusive homosexuality of various types in 'more than 60 species of nondomestic mammals and birds' (47). It is complex, because exclusivity itself may vary in terms of time and appropriateness. Long-term exclusivity is the most contested, and here, there are difficulties because there are differences in life expectancy. The operational definition is 'homosexual activity that continues for more than two consecutive years. It could only be absolutely verified by tracking a large number of individuals over their lives and this is obviously difficult — the same problem affects exclusive heterosexuality. Studies of gulls, geese and penguins come closest and there is some evidence of continuous pair bonds lasting as long as 15 years, until death [although there can also be '"divorce"']. Other birds suggest similar patterns. Often there is no heterosexual activity. There may be a connection with whether heterosexual relationships are also lifelong. Exclusively homosexual long-term pairing is rarer in mammals, although bottlenose dolphins show it. 'It is quite likely' that these are exclusively homosexual, although it is very difficult to monitor sexual behaviour in all conditions. Generally, lifetime bonding is no more prominent in heterosexual than in homosexual couples. There are significant portions of the population that do not breed or do hetero sex. There are sometimes sex segregated groups with variable status [usually male only bands]. Sometimes only dominant males mate with females. Sometimes sexual relations are also incestuous. Overall 'exclusivity can be inferred' from patterns including nonbreeding. There can be homosexual friendships, and bisexuality — occurring 'in more than half of the mammal and bird species in which same-sex activity is found' (50). There are many forms and degrees of bisexuality, including sequential versus simultaneous, sometimes affected by seasons, and sometimes alternating with either homo or hetero sexuality. There can be copulation in threesomes, or quartets [massive detail here again]. There can even be individual differences, 'a unique sexual orientation profile' (51). We can use the same scale as Kinsey [!] [irredemably positivist]  used to discuss human sexual orientation [which is highly controversial of course], especially for Bonobo — another argument that there is nothing uniquely human in sexuality. [One study discussed in slightly more detail consists of observations of a troupe of 10 female Bonobo. The redoubtable zoologist 'tabulated all their homosexual genital rubbings [classified how -- how were they different from other kinds of genital rubbings -- status enforcement, say] versus heterosexual copulations' over three months]. There seems to be a spectrum in sexual behaviour. Preference is obviously 'a rather elusive concept to measure', and 'identity' is even more slippery. We have to work with clues to preferences — for example choice of homosexual activity despite the availability of members of the other sex, competition for sexual attention [which indicates motivation], refusals of sexual contacts, continuing sexual preference even after the loss of a mate. Again this happens with 'more than 50 mammals and birds' (53). Some species indicate clear heterosexual references, with perhaps only a '" latent" bisexuality. Consensuality is important. There may be duress or rape, just as with heterosexual relations. Others 'willingly [?] mate with animals of both sexes'. The frequency of bisexual and homosexual activity varies across the species, from near universal to rare. They may be combined [in sexual careers]. Generally there are multiple dimensions, but overall, bisexuality seems more common than homosexuality. There is enough evidence to suggest that this is 'not a uniquely human phenomenon'. Universal heterosexuality 'is also certainly less than ubiquitous'. Overall, multiple shades of sexual orientation are found throughout the animal world' (54). We might try to study the status of individuals with different sexual orientations in their own communities. Spatial relations might be a clue here, or hostility and segregation. There are some suggestions that this is not apparent for homosexual individuals who 'are completely integrated [have no position?] into the social fabric of the species', 'greeted with nonchalance', with individuals moving effortlessly between different forms [including dominant ones?]. There may be 'simple curiosity', or wish to participate — and group sessions can develop, in both homo and hetero. Bisexuality seems to particularly prevent hostility between homo and hetero — and multiple participations are possible. Generally, homosexual activity is 'regarded [!] as routinely as heterosexual activity' (55). If anything, heterosexual copulations are more 'regularly harassed and interrupted' [there may be an age dimension it seems, or an effect of breeding]. Some homosexual partners have become powerful members, perhaps because they draw on the combined strength of paired males. Home territories are defended with combined male vigour. Some homosexual and transgendered animals can even terrorise others [black swans again], sometimes combined with sexual jealousy of one of the pair. Territory may be invaded. Homosexual partners may be more aggressive — often heterosexual individuals being attacked [for some other reason than just their 'preferences'?] There are some cases of homosexual animals being targeted, usually males interfering between two females in order to gain access to one of them, but this rarely prevents variations. Transgendered deer [sic -- they have different antlers, apparently] might be ostracised and have to form their own groups, but this is rare, and segregation is often based on other factors like age, social rank, physical disability and so on. [but not acceptance?] It may be that male-female pairs can defend their nest sites better than female female ones. Individuals may pursue their own segregation and isolation [— try this for anthropomorphism: 'female Japanese macaques in homosexual consort ships… Isolate themselves physically and socially from other troop members… To spend time together' (58)]. Of course 'multiple factors were undoubtedly involved, as is true for the formation of segregated groups of homosexuals among people' (59), as in gay ghettos or subcultures [same as?] , which can even take on positive factors [in both?]. Generally, adverse responses to homosexuality is 'uncharacteristic of animal societies' [but he can't allow it to be unique to human ones]. They are just part of animal social life. Animals are often more humane than humans, and 'might even offer us models' for how to tolerate differently oriented individuals. Overall it looks as if at least three species 'rival, if not equal, human beings and the variability and "completeness" of the sexual expression: Bpnabo, orang utan and bottle nosed dolphins'. Each [deviant] variant is matched by a same-sex option. There are other stratifications based on age and social status, so there are patterns — younger female ones are more likely to do same-sex, and distance between the ranks helps [no suggestion of hierarchy or duress]. [A lot of comparisons are suggested in descriptions here, including the comparability between animals and humans in preferences for 'a face-to-face position' (60), and an ability to engage in sex throughout the female cycle. Animals also do anal and oral sex] [the different factors are never weighted in terms of importance, but sexuality can be assumed to be dominant? Sexual technique also varies according to long-term relationships in humans and animals — there can be 'sexual "virtuosos"' in both, more frequently in same-sex partners, 'availability of this claim with respect to humans cannot be directly addressed here' — he claims we can get more accuracy with animals, because there are wider sexual repertoires in homosexual activities]. There are variations in sexual virtuosity between homo and hetero in different species, however, and some mixed cases where heteros engage in 'anal or rump stimulation '(61). Most encounters either hetero or homo are '"uninspired"', however [values here!!]  Versatility itself is difficult to define — most mounting versatility specifically is found in heteros. Particular species might enjoy a particular variety — seven different mounting positions have been identified among Japanese Macaques [hilarious positivism again], and heteros can show more flexibility in terms of positions commonly used [hilarious and elaborate examples covering dolphins, parrots, hummingbirds, plovers and woodpeckers]. Courting behaviour similarly varies. On to humans. Animal studies show that  'homosexuality is part of our evolutionary heritage as primates'(64) and may date back to the Oligocene epoch. Other primates show considerable sexual [deviance]. We also have cultural heritage, but this also belongs to our status as primates. [evolutionary psychology explains culture].There are 'startling examples of cultural traditions among animals' (65) — 'many animals innovate behaviours and then pass them on', and this is culture for zoologists, or at least proto-culture. We can see these effects in a wide range of behaviours, from hunting techniques to song dialects and migration patterns. Japanese macaques come to the fore again in passing on learned behaviours. Other signs are particular patterns found only in particular populations. Sexual behaviour itself shows such variations, with particular types becoming more popular in some troops than others, and changing over time. So capacity may be biological, but occurrence is variable enough to be considered as cultural [in animals --but the other way around for humans] Cultural sexuality fits with other cultural innovations for example non-reproductive sexual activities and their role in the development of cultural milestones — communication systems and the origin of language. Of course 'caution must always be exercised in making direct comparisons between animals and people, and most these areas are only beginning to be studied in any detail' (66) [much of it seems to turn on evolutionary psychology?] [This next bit is quite good on the role of sex in developing communication and tool {sic} use] Bonobo seem to have a system of gestural communication used during sex, for example, and further language uses may have developed based on hand and arm gestures [described in hilarious detail]. This assumes that these hand signals are 'iconic', resembling particular body movements which are intended, but they are also signs of conventional organisation and the need for mutual understanding and learning. There are also positioning movements involving direct touching [ a lexicon appears on page 67]. More abstract signals may have developed, development in coding 'identified in the development of human sign languages' (68). Bonobo not have a 'complete human linguistic system', but they have a certain level of sophistication, perhaps even 'a rudimentary "syntax"' and it may be a precursor to human language. Some [evolutionary] linguists suggest that human communication began with gestures, perhaps as a response to the need to coordinate hunting The animals learn to develop this on their own. Attempts to teach sign language have also demonstrated the possession of 'formidable linguistic capacities' following human prompting. For Bonobo, sexual activity seems to have been 'the specific social context that prompted this development' because it is so plastic and variable. This suggests that sexual context might have been important in human language as well. People think that the use of tools is unique to humans, but again we know that inanimate objects are used to manipulate things in the environment and these 'can be seen as precursors to similar activities in human beings' (69). Lots of examples follow — chimpanzees with twigs, macaques grooming each other with sticks. Some of them are used in sexual stimulation, such as 'masturbatory aids', and this has been a bit neglected. Objects can be rubbed or inserted, penises inserted into openings in leaves or fruit, making leaves vibrate, using sticks in bundles as dildoes, sometimes after modifications, 'often in highly creative ways' (71), similar to activities used in people. We might even conclude that 'sexual stimulation may have been a component of tool use among early humans'. There are utilitarian functions as well. Most human cultures have taboos surrounding sexual relations, such as the incest taboo, and these have 'clearly strong social and cultural components'. There is some variation among humans, however, even here. The cultural dimension is also found in 'the role played by social familiarity as opposed to genetic relatedness in choice of partners' (72). Homosexual relations can also be prohibited between related individuals, 'nonbiological factors in the incest taboo', even when there is more tolerance of same-sex relations. So biological matters such as birth defects from inbreeding are not adequate — apart from anything else inbreeding has taken place in some small populations without adverse effects. What of incest taboos in animals? There are some similarities — 'many animal species actually show evidence of a "cultural" or "social" dimension to their avoidance of sexual activity between relatives' [I'd like to see the evidence for that]. There is certainly a lot of diversity. In some prime groups they do seem to be taboos — because 'incest of any sort is not common' (73). It might vary between hetero and homo. Some species have apparently defined a notion of socially acceptable partner. [Japanese bleeding macaques again] [evidence for this is the frequency of particular kinds of sexual relations between kin animals, leading to hilarious positivism again such as 'more than a quarter of all mounts between females occur between half sisters']. 'These choices are not due to instinct… Because no offspring result', and taboo is are not necessarily identical. Some seem to be specific to homosexual activity, which might be considered to be less affected by instinct or genetics. Human rituals are quite important, but they might be based on sexual relations — a couple of primatologists say that the homo sexualised activities between male baboons have been important as models  in human symbolism [but no other baboon behaviours]  — the baboons do sexual and affectionate behaviours, and may be '"greetings" interactions… [serving to]… negotiate and solidify cooperation between males', by risking their sexual organs in the hands of others. , Humans do not fondle genitals,but the same loonies think these are similar gestures — holding the penis is found in Australian aboriginal tribes [and Janners]. They are even found in Judaeo-Christian ceremonies — references to placing the hand on the Masters loins, or indicated by the connection between 'testify, testimony, and testicle' (75). These connections 'are somewhat speculative' [and seemingly based on the work of two particular loonies]. The differences are also 'vast'— but the forms might be similar. Overall, cultural development in the form of language, tools, taboo, and ritual might be 'much more intimately associated' with primate behaviours than was thought, and sexual versions may have been important in cultural development. Is often thought that homosexuality does not occur in nature and therefore that human versions are unnatural. But this whole concept is too simple. For one thing, lots of human activity does not occur in nature but is not condemned, and some animal behaviours including 'diseases, birth defects, rape, and cannibalism' (77) are not considered desirable. Historical attitudes towards homosexuality have varied independently of how natural or unnatural it seems — sometimes it's unnatural nature was 'used to justify its superiority to heterosexuality. In ancient Greece'. Homosexuality is seen as unhealthily close to nature, subhuman. Biological bases have varied in terms of their role in social discrimination — 'racial' differences might be natural, but this has not prevented discrimination. More generally, the binaries or dichotomies seem inadequate, and complex interactions are more profitable — both environment and biology in people and animals. Of course heterosexual relations are seen to be non-deviant, but not all sexual activity fits into exclusive categories. The discussion about animal homosexuality is rarely invoked. Complexity again questions simple origins and binaries. If anything, 'homosexual behaviour is as natural as heterosexual behaviour', widely found in a variety of forms. And, conversely, heterosexual activity is far from being simply natural, and frequently 'exhibits social elaboration or cultural "embellishment"' (79), including forms of acceptability,. Animals usually play a symbolic role in human affairs, in ways that have 'little to do with their biological and social realities' [really? totemism?], although interpretations placed upon their behaviours can have grave consequences if moral values are implied [including for animals — some are seen as having desirable family practices]. It is far less easy to consider some species as deserving if they actually know about the variety of sexual activity that they display — we are far from simple family values. Homosexuality in particular is not uniform, has many forms, is the result of biology and environment. Even separating culture from biology is complex and simple dichotomies should be avoided. Pets and domesticated animals also display variety, but are likely to be invested with greater levels of interpretation and emotion. Most pet owners will be aware of same-sex activity, and there are scientific studies which confirm it, even 'ejaculation during interaction between males' in dogs and cats. Homosexual behaviour is widely apparent, even 'routine among domesticated mammals' (81), often attracting special vernacular terminology. The wild relatives of these animals display the same variety. Homosexuality in pets and other domesticated animals is 'scientifically verified' (82), but there is still a great deal of variety across species, and many meanings are available to people who work with them — sometimes homosexual behaviour in farm animals, for example, is deplored, and sometimes welcomed. [Chapter 3 looks at the history of understandings of animal homosexuality. Chapter 4 looks at ways of explaining away animal homosexuality. Chapter 5 shows some of the possible evolutionary values of homosexuality and alternative sexualities, possibly expanding some of the ones we've got already. I have shifted to chapter 6] Chapter 6 Science has grappled with animal homosexuality and has been unsuccessful in seeing it as just a variant of reproductive behaviour. As a result we need to rethink some of our concepts. We might turn here to 'the traditional knowledge of indigenous and tribal cultures… Aboriginal worldviews' (214) which see gender and sexuality as 'inherently multiple and mutable'. Indigenous beliefs show 'remarkable correspondences with recent scientific discoveries in animal behaviour… Perspectives such as chaos science, post-Darwinian evolution, Gaia theory, biodiversity studies, and the theory of General Economy' (215). His preferred approach is 'the concept of Biological Exuberance' which will synthesise indigenous and modern views. It sets out to oppose the usual view that scarcity and functionality of driven biological changes — abundance and excess have had an equal role, and as a result diverse sexual activity is an expected outcome, a form of biological extravagance. Homosexuality ceases to be an anomaly that requires explanation. Many indigenous cultures see it as 'routine and expected'. Those cultures have already accumulated a storehouse of knowledge about the natural world, including the sexuality of animals 'over thousands of years', and so science might be able to learn something. A suitably complex understanding is found in native North America, Melanesia, and Siberian/Arctic peoples, and these have been particularly well studied. Although beliefs actually vary, forms are similar. They are understood as either 'totemic or symbolic associations of animals with human homosexuality… Beliefs about mutable or non-dualistic genders… Often represented in the figure of a powerful cross gendered animal… Ceremonial re-enactments or representations of animal [sexual variants,] sometimes combined with ritual reversals… Animal husbandry practices that encourage and value… Nonreproductive creatures' (216). [So classic Levi-Strauss stuff here -- animals seem ambiguous in ways which include their sexual behaviour, so they can play important mediating roles -- cf the mediating importance of ambiguous objects too like tobacco or honey.It is the mediating roles which are important, not the anomalies presented by bisexual animals] In native America, homosexual and transgender persons are seen as possessing two spirits which is sacred. Such people are frequently shamans or healers. They may have certain animals symbolically associated with them, or favour particular clans or creation stories [lots of examples]. They may be tricksters, shape shifters, mediators between humans and animals or men and women, or ourselves and others. They may be implicated in sacred quests or dreams. They may be associated with birds that have striking colour schemes of two colours [including magpies]. In some places they are associated with left-handed things including left-handed bears, and bears are often seen 'as a powerful cross gendered figure' (217), both with male aggression and ferocity, and yet with female qualities such as life-giving. Left-handedness is 'traditionally associated with the feminine' such cultures so bears are seen to be left-handed as well, and there may be taboos about using right-hands to hunt them. There is even '"left-handed speech"' (218) where  'special affixes can be added to words' [so is left-handedness the main thing or sexual ambiguity?].  Male coyotes may be tricksters [Denzin would be very happy], and they may marry different animals or be homosexual or transgender [to trick other animals into marriage] [so again is tricking the central thing with sexual tricking a part of it?] There are 'continuing' links between animals and homosexuality or transgender [some examples of folktales about coyote follow]. Sometimes ambiguous animals are used in human rituals — as well as 'shamanic rights of self mutilation… Feats of astounding physical endurance, and graphic sexual imagery' (219). A particular dance 'culminates on the final day with symbolic homosexual activity between the bison bulls' and another character with a wooden penis. There are rather ceremonial performances in various animal rites [interesting examples e.g. 220 F]. There may be reversed activities or ritual killing, including 'ritual transgender'[which seems to be humans adopting oath male and female animal attributes]. Humans can imitate homosexual couplings of animals, or animal birth, and this can carry over into animal husbandry which acknowledges gender and sexual variability — hermaphrodite sheep and goats might be thought to be particularly valuable, for example. In New Guinea homosexuality and transgender 'also feature prominently among the indigenous peoples'. Homosexuality is part of social and ceremonial interaction and [deviant] animals are equally pervasive. Sometimes 'all males undergo a period of homosexual initiation'. Sometimes semen masculinises boys [this has also been condemned as a form of child abuse]. Some groups recognise a third sex — hermaphrodites or intersexed people. Homosexuality can featuring creation myths, in male parthenogenesis. Animals can also be 'symbolically associated with homosexuality'(222). Some animals are thought to have sexual [careers], sometimes involving 'a daily oscillation between genders' [and we should take this seriously as indigenous knowledge?]. Some dance ceremonies mimic animal courtship, sometimes with gender inversion. The cassowary in particular is considered to be androgynous or gender mixing, combining masculine and feminine attributes, sometimes seen as androgynous or hermaphrodite, undergoing transformation. It can be particularly valued where 'ritualised homosexuality" is practised (223). [There seems to be quite a bit of biological confusion here too — that the cassowary has a penis, gives birth through the anus, suckle their young from neck wattles -- but see below]. These features can emerge in human rituals involving cassowary dancers with both male and female characteristics. The cassowary can rule over a whole group of 'androgynous and sex transforming animals' in one particular 'remote tribe" (224), represented by various divine creator figures, and represented by special humans in rituals and ceremonies: in one 'they are sometimes referred to as "male mothers"' and can cross dress. Sometimes they are 'physically intersexual or hermaphrodite members of the tribe'. They are associated with the life force itself. Other groups in Vanuatu perform homosexuality in various ways [sometimes physically and sometimes symbolically] in secret ceremonies, all of which involve 'the image of the shark' (225). Sometimes pigs are seen to be androgynous at least when they first appeared, and actual hermaphrodites are highly prized and encouraged so that nearly every village has some. Sometimes they are attributed 'seven distinct "genders' (226), a particularly fruitful 'indigenous classification' which 'exceeds in completeness any conceptual or non-nomenclatural system developed by Western science' [usual cringing stuff]. Men who raise hermaphrodite pics might be seen as sexually ambiguous themselves. In Siberia/Arctic there is 'a similar constellation of phenomena'. There are cross gender animal spirit guides, shamans who can assume characteristics of the other sex, 'gender reversals and re-combinations' where there are [sexual careers]. They may be associated with particular animals and feature in  many myths. There may be animal impersonation combined with cross dressing, again often 'aimed at promoting sexual activity and a "renewal of life"' (227). Some dances imitate animal courtship displays. Reindeer might be seen as particularly powerful transgendered creatures ['and are thought to hatch from giant eggs on the tundra']. Clothing associated with these rituals might also display mixed characteristics. Some Inuit recognise a third gender or sex, and are familiar with transsexuals and transvestites and mythically transformed shamans. An originating deity bridges opposites including male and female, animal and human. Again there is are sometimes seen as mixed gender, and this is revealed in various ceremonies involving beavers. There can be 'bawdy displays of transvestism', simulated homosexual activity, various other transgressions and reversals. [Lots of fascinating examples again for example 229]. Spirit helpers may often be seen as hermaphrodite and impersonated by cross dressing humans or ambiguous animals. Nonbreeding animals can also feature in some husbandry practices, although they are not apparently given special meaning. This includes gelded or barren animals, who are considered essential for the welfare of the whole herd, embodying 'cosmic life force' and fertility (230). There are 'wide differences in cultural context and details' but also 'a number of remarkable correspondences and continuities' between these three indigenous groups. There may indeed be five central themes: animals are symbolically associated with homosexuality or transgender; gender-mixing creatures can be particularly important in cosmology; ritual enactments of animal homosexuality and transgender are commonplace and are associated with fertility or life; there might be a male mother figure, or patterns of reversals or inversions. Hermaphrodite and nonbreeding animals are cultivated and might be highly valued, and ambiguous animals and people 'are consistently honoured and ceremonialised'. A continuity is seen between human and nonhuman creatures. There may be 'implications for contemporary scientific thought'. These views may not be literally accurate, and 'many of the more "fanciful" indigenous beliefs about animals are obviously false (at least in their specifics)' (231). But there may be some useful observed connections. For example homosexuality is common among bison magpies or bears, or in closely related animals — emus and ostriches if not exactly for cassowaries [but this course assumes that indigenous peoples know about these other animals]. Correspondences of this kind are summarised in the table, pages 231 – 33 [another paratactic device that offers no chance for intervention]. Transgender seems to offer more precise correspondences, especially into sexuality. Modern science 'has provided startling confirmation of a number of indigenous "beliefs"' about cross gendered animals — 'some species of bears  probably are left paw dominant'[pretty weak confirmation!]. Left-handedness might be common, and there is not always consistency, but polar bears seem to be consistently left-handed [a brilliant study showed that they were more commonly trapped by extending their left limbs into the trap]. There 'also appears to be a correlation between left-handedness and homosexuality/transgender in humans' (234) [must look up the reference]. Bears are indeed attracted to human menstrual blood as in the myths, discovered by zoologists 'employing controlled olfactory – preference tests'. There may even be 'actual cases of physical gender mixing in bears', and one study found 'significant numbers of "masculinised females"' in wild populations, perhaps between 10 and 20% 'in some populations. They can have different sorts of genitalia, they can combine the phallus and the vagina 'so the female actually mates and gives birth through the tip of her "penis"'. Combinations of male and female sex organs can also be found in other animals even though they are 'not usually hermaphroditic' (235). There is so much profusion that scientists of that to develop new terminology, sometimes drawing on Greek mythology such as chimera or mosaic [the implications they should use indigenous peoples names]. There can be all sorts of chromosome configurations such as 'XXY, XXX, XXXY, XO' and this will produce mixtures of sex organs and sexual characteristics. One animal is actually 'literary divided in half' (236) and is called a gynandromorph. [And are these sexually ambiguous in activity?] 'Recent discoveries by zoologists' are remarkably similar to indigenous ideas, for example that would lemmings are indeed often female and chromosomally male., Or that moles can do sex reversal, even primates can. Female caribou may not be mixed gender, but they can 'exhibit physical "transvestism" in the sense that they bear antlers'. There are similar parallels with the beliefs about birds who can reverse roles, sometimes associate in homosexual pairs, or display a 'polyandrous social system' in the case of cassowaries. Those birds do have unusual anatomies — males can possess a kind of penis which is also '"invaginated"' (237) and they have cloacas rather than anuses. 'Most amazingly, all-female cassowaries also possess a phallus', similar to the males but smaller — 'a "male clitoris"'. There may be similarities with the notion of hyper- masculinity, excessive masculinity displayed sometimes in two -spirit characters. This is sometimes associated with homosexuality as masculinising men. We find this in birds as well as other animals. 'Are the various connections between indigenous beliefs and scientific facts merely fortuitous, or do they represent accurate observation of animals on the part of aboriginal cultures?' (238). They do depend on some 'often esoteric details of animal behaviour', itself grounded in direct observation and study, even though 'encoded in mythological terms'. Aboriginal knowledge 'often mirrors the findings of more "objective" scientific enquiry, sometimes down to the most minute detail'. Indigenous classification systems are sometimes more comprehensive than scientific ones. Some of the qualities known have only just recently been discovered by science. Sometimes indigenous knowledge exceeds scientific understanding, for example in the behaviour of walrus among the Inuit, or the habits of beavers among the Cree. So there might be particularly accurate understanding of gender mixing. The variety of useful names for these creatures is significant. First-hand observations seems at least as important as mythology. Sometimes it can exceed Western science. Left-handedness in bears is an example of accurate observation rather than figments of the imagination [yes --but the connection with sexuality is imagination?]. Widespread animal homosexuality and transgender might also indicate that indigenous cultures knew more about these activities than Western science do, and that designations of homosexuality might be in advance of Western science, indicated 'time and again' [one example is Navajo discovery of a bird before scientists discovered it — and lots of others]. The discovery of indigenous pharmaceuticals offers a similar story, as do reports of self-medicating behaviour in animals — there is now a whole new 'exciting field of enquiry' called zoopharmacognosy (241). So oral traditions are often not as mistaken as we claim, but should be seen instead as 'repositories of a scientific tradition' (242). They should not be just dismissed as inaccurate, because science itself misses many examples or ignores those where there is a 'strong personal distaste for the subject matter' as in homosexual behaviour. We should see them as signposts for future research, suggesting birds to study or behaviours to investigate. We should form a partnership [?] between the two paradigms, and there have been some useful collaborations [detailed on 243]. There is a course of particular implication for homosexuality and transgender characteristics. The value of indigenous beliefs is not so much the accuracy but 'the overall worldview imparted by these cultures' (243) [that there are multiple possibilities]. If the possibilities are recognised in animals, then they tend to be better accepted among humans. Only silly Westerners find it impossible to imagine queer animals. While Westerners see homosexuality as an insult related to purity or virility 'sentiments, less overtly throughout the scientific discourse' (244), natives see homosexuality 'as an affirmation of nature's plurality, strength, and wholeness' and so can actually be the more accurate of the two views. Inclusion is more important than literal accuracy anyway [make your mind up]. Chaos theory is now fashionable and we should embrace it, together with '"perhaps a more mystical concept of animals"' [quoting some naturalists]. This would break away from narrowly functional explanations and recognise 'inherent multiplicity' (245). There are no narrow functions — existing is the only purpose [not quite performance then?]. These new insights comprise Biological Exuberance, as a shift in perspective, designed to find new patterns in existing facts. Many ideas are still speculative and controversial, but sometimes they turn out to be compatible with orthodox theories after all [so make your mind up again]. We do need a breakthrough [interesting term], a paradigm shift. There is a post-Darwinian version of evolution, that sees nature as erratic, discontinuous, with lots of contingency, and signs of 'the self organisation of life' (246), that environments can alter genetic codes, and that natural selection is no longer 'hegemonic'. There is a convergence with chaos theory. [Deleuze and Guattari have had a go at this too, of course -- see DeLanda ]. This might provide new insights into things like extinction of species, mimicry between animals, convergences between biological and inorganic forms. There are implications for the other sciences Take self organisation of life. Assemblages do not happen at random but can form '"spontaneously"' [enabling a weasel over life forces?]. Underlying processes may produce convergences in form and in this way 'actually "direct" evolutionary change'. There is also a notion of a '"fluid  genome"' where the environment changes genes, and there is a two-way interaction which may produce new species. All this is still early, but some famous biologists are on board. For someone called Edward O Wilson, for example, the conventional notion of evolution is a myth, 'a form of religion'. The new approaches are much more open [that 'good word' that we encounter so often]. Particular attention is focused on the role of random genetic variations, which has long been challenged by Stephen Jay Gould among others [he seems to have challenged in particular the idea that every surviving form reflects an adaptive mechanism]. 'Bizarre' examples of sexuality might be particularly relevant here. There are parallels with chaos theory, applied quite early to biology and the fluctuations of populations, or to understand natural fractals. According to one view, '"evolution is chaos with feedback"' (247). Enthusiasts have searched particularly for 'arrhythmias, discordant harmonies, and aperiodicities' to complement the search for pattern. Evolutionary adaptation has been challenged on the grounds that first we need to explain the 'incredible variety' that occurs in the first place — for example in 'plumage diversity', or in the diversity of sex and gender that we have been examining. Some of this behaviour seems to be counter-productive but also normal, and we should attempt to explain apparently aberrant behaviour as a part of the system [classic deleuzian stuff here][I first came across with RK Merton attempting to explain juvenile delinquency as a normal but illegal response to 'social strain'] . Complexity needs to be examined, including that found in sexual behaviours. Goerner has offered five principles for chaos. The main implications are: nonlinear systems may show qualitative changes in behaviour; there may be multiple competing forms of behaviour each of them stable; alternative sexualities can therefore be seen as 'alternative manifestations of a single sexual "dynamic"', (248) with 'endless and infinitely varying expressions'. Sexual behaviour would be a good test for chaos theory. Overall, seemingly incoherent phenomena may be part of a wider pattern. There is also Lovelock's Gaia theory, which has had a substantial impact on science and evolution. Everything forms 'a single self-regulating entity, analogous to a giant living organism' (249) [Sociologists have long had doubts about this] . Cooperation is as important as competition, adaptive explanations operate with species rather than individuals, or the whole biosphere. A number of innovative ideas have led to attempts at verification. Implications for homosexuality are also important if we see that reproduction is not just prompted by a drive to survive — 'it may be beneficial for a species or ecosystem as a whole if some of its members do not procreate' (249). Homosexuality is not the same as non-reproduction, however, and there is 'little evidence' that it helps to regulate populations [as a latent function]. But it is paradoxical and mixed, illustrating 'multiplicity within oneness'[but it was argued before that it was not entirely biological]. [Then arguing the case nevertheless] Sexual diversity may have a role in a larger whole, as with biodiversity generally, now taken as a measure of the vitality of the system. Usually this is sort of in physical terms, such as the number of different species, but sexual diversity also seems so common that it might be similar [the example is the tremendous diversity apparently among sandpipers — described at some length on 250]. Such diversity can lead to species success, greater adaptability and flexibility. Even homosexuality might be linked to 'environmental or social changes' — for example when golden plovers become more active homosexually when severe winters disrupt heterosexual pairing [why should this result? We seem to have some compensation notion here that if golden plovers can't get hetero sex, they are mightily relieved to get homo sex]. Female co-parenting among grizzlies is more common 'in conditions of environmental or social flux' [equally puzzling], and ostriches do more homosexual courtship in excessively rainy seasons. 'The correlations between these factors need to be more systematically investigated' (251) but at least we should not expect some linear one-way cause-and-effect relationship [of course], but rather plasticity. It might be plasticity that enables helpful responses [but why sexual plasticity?]. If we take sexual versatility as both biological and cultural we can find more links to species success — a certain G Gray Eaton suggest that plastic behaviour means general adaptability, in humans as well as among macaques. This is not claiming an inevitable function, although there may be specific functions, but rather 'a manifestation of the larger "chaotic ordering" or nonlinearity of the world'. Looking for specific contributions might be too literal. General flexibility might be the valuable thing. So we need to examine sexual diversity as biodiversity, but also including social organisations. This then might produce 'an essential measure of biological vitality' the more diverse they become. Mating and courtship patterns are important after all. Generally, many specific purposes of behaviour are difficult to see anyway. Thinking in terms of the 'overall complexity and vitality of the environment' (252) might be more productive rather than anything too narrowly utilitarian. [Then it gets quite pious and communitarian…] 'Every individual, every behaviour — whether productive or "counter-productive", comprising 1% or 99% of the population — has a part to play'. 'Biological diversity is intrinsically valuable, and homosexuality/transgender is one reflection of that diversity' [no doubt, but the argument earlier was that it was a particularly valuable component]. The common theme with the new approaches is that natural systems display 'profound extravagance', whether fractal systems, strange attractors, or biological tropical exuberance including birdsong. Birdsong in particular is too rich and varied for simple functional explanations does this make it a language as Guattari seemed to think?] . Even insects displayed diverse and complex structures, and some have particularly '"apparently superfluous complexity"' of their genitalia. Luxuriant features, whether peacock tail feathers or fleshy dewlaps can now make sense. The idea is based on Bataille [!] In the notion of 'General Economy' (253). Excess exuberance are driving forces of biological systems, more so than scarcity or competition or narrow functionality. Bataille's point is that all organisms have more energy than they actually need to stay alive — it is used to grow, but even then there is an excess that must be used up in some way. Bataille thought it was through sexual reproduction, eating, and death [hunting?]. This superabundance of energy comes from the sun, and it provides life with a problem of how to manage excess. It leads to excessive ornament or consumption, or elaboration, or new species, in both humans and animals. So life is actually full of extravagant and excessive activities. In human life there are many attempts to control such exuberance in religion or political systems. [sounds a bit like deleuzian 'desire'] The whole approach 'accords startlingly well' with some observations in science, including those discussed above. Sometimes there are specific confirmations too. Biologists have noted that sexual reproduction is wasteful, and can even damage individuals or whole populations [like insects who die after mating]. It seems inefficient compared to non-sexual reproduction, 'generally considered to be more than twice as "expensive" (energetically as well as genetically)' (254). Similar points can be made about eating — after all plants manufacture their own food. Death as well, such as the enormous death rates of baby animals. Nature is not cruel but abundant and excessive. This approach is also 'intuitively accessible' — we can see excess in the lush plants in our garden []bred in by us] , varied snowflakes, complex colourings of leaves. Bataille is right to accord this great importance, rather than seeing extravagance as the result of byproduct of something like evolution. Above all we can understand the phenomenon of homosexuality in this light — it is classically '"wasteful"' (255), even more so than heterosexual activity, and thus has an important role in energy expenditure. It is already the case that reproduction is limited to only a few in many cases. There is both 'prodigious fecundity and fruitless prodigality'. Exuberance is also stressed in nonscientific indigenous worldviews and their cosmologies. EO Wilson again has seen Amazonian shamans or people in New Guinea as particularly keen on exuberance, and some indigenous people seem to be into fractal architecture. Indigenous cultures may guide us in our '"respiritualising"' of nature (256) [lots more examples of biologists celebrating indigenous knowledges page 256]. Some conceptions approach Bataille's, or chaos theory, or Gaia. There was apparently a 'National Forum on Biodiversity' in 1986 organised by scientists which included indigenous peoples like Larry Littlebird, a native American, who intrigued the audience. Despite this openness, however, 'the centrality of homosexuality/transgender to indigenous belief systems' (257) was missed. Littlebird's own tribe recognises two-spirits and homosexual and transgender humans and animals, and references in his story to particular animals clearly connected to these issues. There is a convergence between scientific and indigenous thoughts over notions of gender and sexual fluidity. One route from linear thinking led to quantum theory [!], but this led us back into 'the lap of the Great Mystery' already central to indigenous knowledge. [No need for all those ingenious experiments then] There are insights to inform our current '"Crisis of Perception"', and modern identity politics. The 'teachings of tribal people' still need to be acknowledged, especially the 'pivotal role played by homosexuality and transgender'. Some modern books are keen to cite people like Native American poets, and they also offer 'juxtaposing references to specific constructs of Western science such as quantum physics or molecular structures'. One often-cited person is also a lesbian who celebrates androgyny — although it is not common to acknowledge these characteristics. The poet concerned [Harjo] talks of a unifying life force linking all things in the Great Mystery [she actually cites a Sioux chieftain], and this has been developed by writers on wildlife conservation. Such people have also appreciated the 'sophisticated game management practices' developed by Native Americans, sometimes based on the spiritual role played by animals like bison. Bisons can also be homosexual, although again this is often misrecognised [by illustrations in Western books]. If we need indigenous perspectives, we must also include their views on sexual variety, however unpopular. Native people should not be 'sanitised'. Admiration for their environmental views, 'something of a cliche' (259) should extend to their notions of sexual diversity, and the positive role played for it [and one example notes another suggestion for the connections between homosexuality and fecundity]. It might seem paradoxical to recognise apparently counter-productive sexual activity, but it should be grasped as part of a more general whole, linked to 'the vitality of the natural world'. A certain K Schlesier has studied Cheyenne shamans and noticed the connections with new scientific paradigms, by recognising cosmic energy as 'a power that controls quantum phenomena' and explains other paradoxes and ambiguities. Central is a gender-mixed or two-spirit shaman. with nature as a totality that can join opposites. Sexual ambiguity is seen as 'a manifestation of the sacred oneness and plenitude' (260). So we are making progress by looking both to indigenous and futuristic sources, including rethinking things like shape shifting and morphing when applied to gender. The animal world is already 'brimming with countless gender variations and shimmering sexual possibilities'. [Another example] Monarch butterflies gather in their hundreds of thousands, sometimes mating both in homo and hetero forms [homo forms apparently occupy 'more than 10% of the Monarch pairs', (261)] They evoke biological exuberance. So we have been on a 'journey' threading together a number of strands, sometimes following 'tangential meanderings' until we get to the concept of Biological Exuberance. Now animal sexual diversity makes sense, even though it might be inexplicable according to 'conventional definitions of usefulness'. Such failure explanation has led to something new, however 'a new way of seeing the world'. We now see the connections between animal sexual diversity and our everyday lives. We can see examples of exuberance everywhere. Many of us have clearly experienced natural variety, sometimes as ecstatic. We can see it even in rundown neighbourhoods. We have synthesised some scientific views that are at the same time 'in accordance with some of the most ancient indigenous conceptions' (262). We have dissolved binaries, honoured difference and irregularity without having to manage them, and embraced paradox and 'unspeakable inexplicability' [retained a sense of mystery and awe], affirmed the vitality of life and 'infinite possibilities'. There is then a species by species 'bestiary'. I am only going to bother with the Bonabo. They live in mixed sex and mixed age communities with temporary subgroups that are more fluid. Female adolescent Bono though 'typically' (269) leave their home group go to a new one, but males remain in the same one for life. Females form 'strongly bonded subgroups', and are generally dominant. The mating system is 'promiscuous' with interchangeable hetero partners. They have one of the most 'varied and extensive repertoires of homosexual practices'. Females do 'mutual genital stimulation', possibly uniquely, usually in a face-to-face embrace, more commonly than with hetero. They rubbed their genitals together  (GG rub) 'directly stimulating each other's clitoris' (270) [must have used a zoom lens]. Their genitals may have been designed particularly for lesbian interactions. They thrust at 'a rate of about two thrusts per second', the same as males in hetero, but sideways. They last an average of 15 seconds compared to 12 seconds for hetero. They 'experience intense pleasure — and probably orgasm' shown by their 'facial expressions, vocalisations, and genital engorgement'. Lesbian partners maintain eye contact. They can grin or utter 'screams or squeals that are thought to be associated with sexual climax'. The clitoris is prominent and well developed and it undergoes full erection. Is even possible to perform penetration. There may be different positions. Females may 'often "negotiate" positions', by lying down to see if the other wants to go on top (271). This goes on among females of all ages, but often the younger female will be on top. It is 'also… more common' with different ranks. There may be preliminary courtship signals — 'approaching the partner, peering closely, standing on the hind legs and raising the arms overhead while making eye contact and/or touching the shoulder or knee while staring'. With captive Bonobo there may be a 'highly developed "lexicon" of manual gestures' as we saw. Individuals may have multiple sexual partners — for example in one troop 'each female interacted sexually with five other females on average'. There may be simultaneous group sexual activity. Particularly '"attractive"' animals (272) might get more action. Attraction refers to 'the shape, size and coloration of the genital swellings'. Relationships seem to be strongly bonded and include other social activities. Same sex bonds 'form the core of social organisation'. Some older ones may act as mentors. There is a kind of 'homosexual "incest taboo"' with relations tending not to be chosen as partners, although there is some homosexual activity 'between mothers and their daughters'. Males have a variety of interactions. They may stimulate each other's genitals in different positions, thrust by rubbing their erections together. There is no anal penetration. Older ones are more often on top. They may 'engage in what is known as penis fencing', or rump rubbing ('mutually rubbing the anal and scrotal regions. Both males often have erections'. There are different sorts of mounting activities. They may switch positions. They may 'scream or grin in sexual arousal'. They may indulge in 'oral sex or fellatio' especially with younger males. There may be manual stimulation, usually with adult males as the masturbator. There may be ' openmouthed kisses, often with extensive mutual tongue stimulation' (273). Homosexual activity is 'nearly as common as heterosexual activity', most of which is between females. They may be brief periods of sexual activity throughout the day, where each female participates in rubbing 'on average once every two hours or so'. Virtually all of them are 'bisexual', and motherhood is integrated with homosexual activity. Homo and hetero may be interspersed or alternated, or even occur simultaneously in groups. 'It appears that — among some females at least — homosexual activity is preferred'. Some females have been seen 'consistently ignoring males… Preferring instead to GG rub with each other'. Hetero activity also has non-reproductive behaviours, including 'rump rubbing, fellatio, and manual stimulation'. There may be reversed mounts, there may be copulation without penetration or ejaculation. Both sexes masturbate, sometimes with inanimate objects. It can be group sexual activity, including homo/hetero threesomes. Hetero activity can take place in several bouts in rapid succession. There are frequent sexual invitations 'often associated with begging for food' and this can even become annoying, especially with males who will 'try to avoid further heterosexual interactions' (273 – 4). Females can cooperate in attacking males. They mate during all parts of the female sexual cycle, so a third of copulations 'occur during periods when fertilisation is unlikely or impossible' (274). Pregnancy does not stop mating. Adults interact with adolescents and juveniles. Young females can undertake homosexual mating but not get pregnant. Infants are also involved, and infants can initiate the activity 'about a third of the time': we are talking about genital rubbing and copulatory postures including penetration (of adults mercifully). Bonobo have even been seen 'engaging in playful sexual interactions with red tailed monkeys… In the wild'. A massive list of references in zoological journals ensues. Some of it refers to sexual activity as an alternative to aggression, while others bang on about the tension regulation functions, in captive bonobo, that is. I have summarised a couple only here boy that was fun! back to Barad page