Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Hardcover)

The following very valid points can be drawn from this largish survey of animal sexuality:
1. Sex (and sexual activity) feels good. Obviously for animals, as well as humans.
2. Animals can get very horny.
3. The "coy female" may just be a myth.
4. Animal sexual targets do not *necessarily* have to be fertile - or the opposite gender, or adult, or willing, or the same species, or even alive.
5. Sexual behaviour is inextricably, and complexly, linked with aggressive and social behaviour.
6. Many ethologists and biologists can be surprisingly squeamish at what they will acknowlege as being sexual behaviour.

That said, and in an obvious attempt to remedy problem 6., Bagemihl goes rather overboard in the opposite direction. It seems as if every behaviour which involves touching or which echoes courtship behaviour is described on a purely sexual level, regardless of what other functions it may have for aggression or social recognition. Sexual interpretations are also placed on every activity which results in genital arousal, such as hyena greeting ceremonies and fights over status, or bucks stropping antlers against vegetation; the question for any serious work needs to be, are these actually sexual activities, or is arousal just arousal in a far more general sense? Additionally, in the large portion of the book taken up by descriptions of the sexual behaviour observed in various species, B. classifies some _purely_ aggressive behaviours such as inter-gender attacks, infanticide and cannibalism under "alternative heterosexualities" - if there is a rationale for this, I missed seeing it.

An additional problem is that any even casual reader will be struck by just how anthropomorphic the author's language and apparent viewpoint is. Animals touching nozes or muzzles aren't touching muzzles, they are "kissing"; the split of a mated pair isn't simply the split of a mated pair, it is a "divorce." (I thought that was a legal status? When did wild animals start getting married?)

The book encompasses some 300 species - which is a reasonably large number, but is also far less than 1% of the bird and animal species out there. While it is justifiable to expect that surveys of more species would turn up more examples of "alternative" sexualities, it is truly impossible to judge just what the real proportion is of species that might try various behaviours. There is an inevitable sneaking suspicion that the author has included every species which has ever been recorded trying various "abnormal" sexual behaviours, simply leaving out all the species which have not ever been observed to do so. After all, the point that he is legitimately trying to make is that sexual behaviour can be more chaotic than is widely acknowleged.

The first part of the book is a very good critique of some of the prejudices apparent in scientific description of animal behaviours. It reinforces the point that personal and cultural beliefs inevitably colour interpretation of observed events, even for the most "objective" observers. For this perspective alone the book may be worth buying. The problem lies, however, in that he does not appear to apply this lesson to his own interpretations of behaviour. So, I would read this book as a balance and to add perspective to other readings in ethology, but I would not use it as a primary or definitive source.

At least the first part of the book is very well referenced (the species descriptions somewhat less so), so if you are sufficiently motivated and have access to the resources, you can look up the original papers for yourself.

As to what relevance these behaviours might have for observed human behaviour - wisely, the author doesn't belabor the point too much, at least overtly. After all, humans are far more than simple bundles of instinct, and our big brains and the complexity of our interactions means that culture, personality and personal histories influence us at least as much as simple biology. The point is rightly made that not all "unnatural" behaviours are things never seen in nature, without attempting to place a moral interpretation on them or justify them on the grounds of being adaptive. In fact, Bagemihl levels some very relevant criticisms at the tendency to try to classify everything observed as "adaptive" - kudos to him for that, it is an issue not brought up enough in biology. But again, he later muddies the waters by using heavily anthropomorphised descriptions of the animals.

"Exuberant" best describes the writing, as well. The book is a surprisingly fast read.