In 2016, the American organization Russian Freedom Foundation, created to support the Russian LGBT community, allocated 54 grants worth almost $ 2 million to promote homosexuality. One of the principles of this propaganda: “Constantly remind straight people that homosexuality is a common and natural phenomenon.
The more innate and widespread it appears, the less abnormal and more acceptable it will seem to straight people. Following this principle, the famous minion of homo-propaganda from Minsk in his custom-made video voices myths about homosexuality in the animal kingdom and makes a lot of false statements, the analysis of which is the subject of this article.
Statement 1: "In nature, homosexuality is the perfect norm."
First of all, let's deal with such a pederastic newspeak term as "homosexuality", which implies parity with "heterosexuality."
In the relevant literature, the psychological attraction to one's own sex is described as "homosexuality", and the behavior based on such attraction - "homosexuality". It may well turn out that a person who is inherent in homosexuality will never engage in homosexuality, and vice versa - a person who has never experienced an attraction to his sex will begin to engage in homosexuality, for example, having got to places not so distant, or due to industrial necessity.
According to WHO, homosexuality is "the exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of one's own sex, with or without physical relationships."
Promotional video:
There is not a single animal that fits this definition, since no individual in nature is exclusively homosexual and will not prefer a sexual partner of the same sex to the opposite one if he has a choice. Frank Beach, one of the world's leading researchers of animal sexual behavior, wrote that he does not know a single reliable example of a male or female in the animal kingdom preferring a partner of the same sex. “Females can jump on females, and males on males, but without the introduction of a penis or a climax … This behavior can hardly be called sexual, the definition of“saddle behavior”would be more accurate … If they had the opportunity, they would rather jump on a female . Sometimes this kind of saddle behavior can be seen in socio-hierarchical rituals as an expression of dominance or favor.
Thus, in the animal kingdom there is no "homosexuality", but there is same-sex behavior, which often does not have the slightest sexual context. Perhaps the most accurate definition for same-sex behavior in animals, if we extrapolate to them human conventions, would be "episodic forced bisexuality." This behavior is observed only under unfavorable circumstances - with overpopulation, a lack of individuals of the opposite sex, or in artificially created unnatural conditions. Sexual behavior in animals, which are lower in development than chimpanzees, is an involuntary response to hormonal changes in the body caused by the influence of external stimuli, the control and awareness of which come to naught as the intelligence of the animal decreases. For example, springtime, the grass turns green, the sun shines,and the animal starts a breeding program. If individuals of the opposite sex are unavailable, it may well happen that the programmed behavior will result in ersatz, as in the example of a bull and a motorcycle.
At the same time, no animal in nature loses its natural attraction to the opposite sex and realizes it at the first opportunity. Therefore, to assert that a dog jumping on another dog is "homosexual" is just as absurd as to claim that a dog jumping on an old woman is a gerontophile, or that a dog that has sensed heat on the frozen corpse of a knocked down bitch is a necrophile.
In any case, this behavior is only an imitation of sexual intercourse, since real copulation between animals of the same sex is impossible for purely anatomical reasons. Even anthropoid males of bonobos do not put anything in each other's mouths or intestines, as some representatives of the Homo Sapience species do, but only hit their scrotums in hierarchical showdowns devoid of sexual connotation.
Now let's look at what "norm" is
The concept of a norm is rather vague. In the popular sense, it refers to a generally accepted rule. In medicine and psychology, the norm is a state of the body that does not disrupt its functioning. In statistics, what falls within the range of 68% is considered normalized.
In the animal kingdom, same-sex behavior, which in most cases is not even sexual, is documented in about 450 species, while 953,434 species have been described and cataloged. Dividing 450 by 953.434, we see that same-sex behavior in the animal kingdom tends to zero: 0.04%, that is, the most distant from the norm and lies far beyond the most marginal deviation. Thus, this is not a generally accepted rule, but an exception to it. The only rule in nature is procreation. Gender bodies are made for reproduction and no amount of verbiage will change this fact. Perverted forms of homosexual intercourse, in which the organs of the digestive tract are used as genitals, which do not have the necessary characteristics for this, are always destructive and fraught with the most serious consequences.
"Homosexuality" is a violation of reproductive function, in which the transfer of DNA to descendants stops, and the long chain of previous generations is broken. This cannot be normal from either an evolutionary biological or a psychiatric point of view. That is why, until politicians intervened in science, homosexuality was always on the list of mental disorders.
Nature is a remarkably efficient and perfected mechanism with the highest efficiency. The assumption that for some reason nature has created non-reproductive types of "orientations" that waste vital resources and waste sexual energy is absurd. Nowhere in nature is such extravagance observed. Nature is inherently "heterosexist": it strives for heterosexuality, and this is essential for our survival. The complementarity of the sexes and heterosexuality are the norm in animal and human biology.
A perversion in the classical definition is: “any manifestation of the sexual instinct that does not correspond to the goals of nature (ie reproduction), provided that there is a possibility of natural sexual satisfaction. It is necessary to distinguish between perversion of sexual desire and perversion of sexual activity, since the latter is not necessarily due to psychopathology. That is, perversion is determined not by a separate sexual act, not aimed at procreation, but by a general sexual desire, not aimed at procreation. This phenomenon has no analogues in nature except for representatives of one species - Homo Sapience.
Now, speaking of people, as defined by WHO: a norm is "an ethical standard and model of behavior that is considered desirable, acceptable and typical for a particular culture."
In the overwhelming majority of countries of the world, the homosexual model of behavior is neither typical nor desirable, and is by no means perceived by society as an ethical standard, and therefore does not apply to the norm. The results of an international survey among psychiatrists about their attitude towards homosexuality showed that the vast majority consider homosexuality as deviant behavior, although it was excluded from the list of mental disorders.
Statement 2: “Females of Japanese macaques, even with an abundance of motivated males, prefer females, regularly mate with them and have an orgasm. They form stable lesbian couples for fun …"
It’s incredible how many vile and shameless lies can fit in one sentence. Here we are talking about the study "Sexual partner preference in female Japanese macaques." First of all, the study was carried out in captivity, where there was no "abundance" of males: there was only one male for 11 females. Same-sex non-sexual behavior in females, where there was no trace of orgasm, was observed only during the mating season, and was temporary (from one hour to one week), and not "regular" or "stable." This happened only in some groups, only in some females, and only if a certain male was with them. Summing up, the author himself points out a direct connection between the insufficient number of males and the choice of a same-sex partner.
The study summary states that "female Japanese macaques are best characterized as bisexual," but reading the study itself, you will find that the content does not match the summary or title. The author, an ardent gay activist, manipulatively uses the terms "sexual partner" and "bisexuality" although the study does not describe anything that could be attributed to sexual behavior.
So "homosexual partnership" is defined as "partial or complete climbing of one female on top of another, followed by sitting or lying on her back." This climbing is accompanied by "sexual harassment", which is defined as "pushing, hitting, grabbing, slapping on the ground, shaking the head, screaming, trembling lip, body spasms, and gazing." From the further description it becomes clear that a social ritual is taking place here, performed for the sake of the patronage of the dominant partner, who temporarily increases the status of the subordinate. That is, this is not sexual behavior, but a manifestation of dominance and submission. The author, by hook or by crook, tries to present this ritual in a sexual context, although he himself admits that "it would be wrong to characterize this relationship as exclusively sexual." In research,11 females were locked in a room with 1 young male, and some of the females, who, apparently, were of higher rank, preferred to spend time with one another rather than with him. This is the same as closing a group of girls in a room with one pimply nerd and saying: "yeah, they communicate with each other, but not with him - homosexual preference!" Nevertheless, nature took its toll, and in the end, 9 females gave themselves to him. Here, there was no violation of sexual desire, but only atypical behavior caused by unnatural conditions and a lack of individuals of the opposite sex. It should be noted that the test subjects were descendants of a group of macaques captured back in 1972, that is, this is not the first generation born in captivity, and the naturalness of their habits is highly questionable. Do not forget that the sexual behavior of such underdeveloped animals as macaques,generally devoid of any hedonistic motivation "for the sake of pleasure."
Statement 3: "Some species of gulls form stable female pairs …"
The study "Sex Ratio in Western Gulls" states that in the colony of Western gulls on Santa Barbara Island, there are only 3 males for every 5 females. Since these birds are physically deprived of the ability to create natural pairs, 10% of females, after mating with males, form partnerships with other females in order to jointly take care of the offspring. While one finds food for itself, the other incubates eggs or guards the chicks, after which they change. This is comparable, perhaps, to how if a grandmother and a mother took care of a child, living in the same apartment - while one is at work or in a store, the other takes care of the child, but gay activists persistently call this phenomenon in birds "homosexuality".
Statement 4: "In the dark-backed albatross, a third of all pairs are homosexual … 25% of black swans … 15% of gray geese"
The study he cites is "Successful Same-Sex Couples in Dusky Albatross." It was carried out in one Hawaiian albatross colony, in which the number of females outnumbered the number of males by almost twice, therefore, 31% of females, having copulated with males, create partnerships for incubating and feeding chicks. However, compared to opposite-sex pairs, female pairs have lower hatching rates (41% versus 87% in normal pairs) and lower reproductive success (31% versus 67%). That is, this study not only does not confirm the presence of same-sex attraction in nature, but also demonstrates the inferiority of same-sex couples in comparison with normal couples. Here again we see a forced excess in conditions of deprivation, without any attempts at sexual gratification.
In geese and swans, same-sex pairs form differently. Researcher Konrad Lorenz called this an "imprinting error." Lamellar-billed birds (and not only birds) have a critical period, sometimes lasting only a few hours from the moment of their birth, in which a fast and irreversible "imprinting" of a stable attachment to any moving object occurs. In theory, it should be a mother, but if she is not near at the right moment, the chick will be imprinted on one of its fellows, or even on a person and inanimate objects. This is how lifelong affection arises between individuals of the same sex in these monogamous birds. However, Lorenz notes, their behavior is never sexual in nature.
They can perform courtship rituals and even assume a mating position, but that's all. Copulation occurs only with individuals of the opposite sex, after which same-sex couples carefully take care of the offspring. It should also be noted that these studies were conducted primarily in captivity and not in vivo.
Thus, all the birds mentioned here do not have a violation of sexual desire or parental instinct, like some people in our society, who, with an abundance of funds and partners, refuse to have children or heterosexual relationships. Therefore, it is unclear how the same-sex partnerships of birds are comparable to what is happening in the LGBT ranks. All these examples only once again prove that in nature there is only one orientation - to procreation, and everything else is disorientation, inherent in only one species - Homo Sapience.
Statement 5: "Bonobos regularly have sex with members of the same sex."
Bonobos are unique in their sexuality, and in many ways are an exception to the rule. They use elements of sexual behavior to express friendliness and defuse conflict situations. That is, their same-sex behavior is not based on sexual desire, and it is observed only in female bonobos, which can rub against each other in social ritual, without losing the slightest interest in males. If macaques express their affection for a relative by looking for something in its fur, female bonobos do it through tribadism. Again, there is no violation of reproductive instinct and heterosexual behavior as in humans.
Statement 6: "Half of elephants' contacts are homosexual."
In elephants, as in all other herd animals, only the best and most powerful male has the right to reproduce, who court all females and drive away all weaker males. Females for young and weak males are simply not physically accessible, and nature requires - the air is full of exciting smells, good weather, hormones are off scale.
If there is no female of his own species next to the male, he will look after the female of a different species. If there is no female, she will look after the male; if there is no male, she will look after an inanimate object. The programmed behavior will spill over into more and more generalized objects. It is just an ersatz substitution, just like a dog's leg.
Statement 7: "8% of rams consistently show cravings exclusively for individuals of the same sex."
This anomaly is associated with unnatural rearing conditions and is only observed in captive animals. Lambs, from the moment of separation from their mother until the first attempt at copulation at the age of one and a half years, were kept in same-sex groups. Exceptional contact with individuals of the same sex and lack of social experience with females resulted in one third of all healthy rams in the population losing the ability to mate with sheep. When such rams were put in a corral in which there were two females and two males, seeing a female for the first time in their life, they did not perceive her as a suitable object. Therefore, some of the males in this category showed interest only in their usual males. As in the above-analyzed birds, imprinting took place here, since during the critical period of development, only males were in their environment.
Nonetheless, once later in mixed groups, almost all males caught up and developed heterosexual preferences. From a group of 24 rams, only 1 could not do this. Subsequent research has shown that the sooner rams become acquainted with females, the less likely this behavior will be, even if the acquaintance is purely visual, through the fence.
Lead animal sexual behavior researcher Frank Beach says that physical sexual gestures, such as courtship or mating rituals, are inherent from birth, but how, when and with whom to use them can only be learned through social relationships, contact with other individuals. A recent study by the California Institute of Technology fully confirmed his observations: the neural circuits responsible for gender recognition are not entirely innate. They cannot form without social experience, that is, without interaction with females. In an experiment on mice, communication with females for only 30 minutes was sufficient for the neurons of young males to acquire "sexual" differentiation, while in animals that were in contact only with males, this did not happen.
Statement 8: "Drosophila flies"
The recognition of a mating partner in these flies, as in many animals, depends on visual, acoustic and chemical signals - pheromones. Some mutated males have lost the ability to sense the male pheromone "tricosen-7" and mistakenly try to care for the male flies. This is not because they are attracted to males, but because, being unable to correctly recognize the signal, they mistake them for females. Researchers call this "gender blindness" and emphasize that same-sex courtship is an atypical behavior associated with inadequate functioning of the nervous system. At the same time, they note that such males do not show any changes in heterosexual courtship or copulation.
Statement 9: "Homosexual behavior has been identified in 1,500 species."
According to the unsubstantiated statement of gay activists who organized a photo exhibition of same-sex behavior in Oslo in 2006, "homosexual behavior was observed in more than 1,500 species." However, there is no evidence for this. With the same success, it can be stated that levitation was observed in 10 species of unicorns. Same-sex behavior has been documented only in just over 450 species, among which cases of sexual behavior are rare.
Pedophilia.
Cannibalism.
Infanticide.
The LGBT lobby, which pays for such stuffing, is ready to stand on the same stage of development with flies and rams, just to prove the natural origin of its aberration, but one should not confuse the norm and the natural deviation from the norm. The fact that some phenomenon exists in animals does not mean that it is normal. If animals can have intercourse with anyone or anything, this does not mean that people should do the same. Animals are also characterized by pedophilia, coprophagia, incest, rape, cannibalism, murder, infanticide, theft and even homosexual necrophilia, but would anyone think of advocating the acceptability of these phenomena in our society, based on their presence in the animal kingdom?
No animal can control its instincts, while a person, if he is, of course, mentally healthy, has this ability. Animals do not have a conscious choice, rational thinking; cannot plan their actions, evaluate their consequences, and even realize their essence or enjoy copulation (with the exception of large anthropoid and dolphins). Therefore, the deliberately distorted and manipulative verbiage about the homosexuality of animals is sheer nonsense.
The status quo accepted in science remains unchanged: same-sex sexual behavior is unique for humans and has practically no analogues among non-human animals.