Gay spider?

BenjaminBoa

Arachnosquire
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
117
I got a kick out of this thread. Don't worry about the title, its nice to have some humor amid the serious questions.
And dont worry about offending someone <_<; I'm gay and I thought this was hilarious, the only people who would take offense to this would be overly insecure people (gay or not) and there's no need to cater to their bitchy behavior anyway. Too bad it's not a green bottle blue or a versi, then you could say he's already flamboyant.
 

jonnyquong

Arachnosquire
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
138
I got a kick out of this thread. Don't worry about the title, its nice to have some humor amid the serious questions.
And dont worry about offending someone <_<; I'm gay and I thought this was hilarious, the only people who would take offense to this would be overly insecure people (gay or not) and there's no need to cater to their bitchy behavior anyway. Too bad it's not a green bottle blue or a versi, then you could say he's already flamboyant.
THANK YOU BenjaminBoa! All I was trying to do was add a little humor. Hella funny your comment about the GBB and the versi! I appreciate your watching my back (pun intended)! :biggrin:
 

catfishrod69

Arachnoemperor
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4,401
Good luck. My female was the one that wasn't interested at all. She let him walk all over her, but never moved.
When i try to pair my P. metallicas i hope the male doesnt act that way.. I hope when my boy matures hes straight
 

captmarga

Arachnobaron
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
339
I have an eggsac from a pair I didn't see mating. I also have a hopefully gravid female from a literal poke-and-run mating. I loaned out one of my male P. formosas last weekend.... he's 6", the female is 8", and he acted scared to death of her. Hopefully they just need time and a little mood lighting (or lack thereof).

The title was fine... but I don't think any animal other than humans assign such titles. In the wild, any "sexual behaviors" between same-sex animals are dominance/submissive actions to assert one animal over the other in the pack/herd/flock.

Fingers crossed for your fellow and a successful moonlight mating!

Marga
 

mark e sic

Arachnosquire
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
94
Now I may be wrong but I think its only a Human thing. +1 on the title being so dumb..
 

Ciphor

Arachnoprince
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
1,640
I've had a mature pair of P. regalis together for about 6 months now, and haven't witnessed a single insertion. Not to say it COULDN"T have happened, but I've checked them at all hours, day and night, and haven't seen a thing. They do frequently sit beside each other on the glass, and the female seems to try to initiate mating, but the male appears to be overcautious, and moves away. Anyone else see something like this and still get a sack? Anything I might try to get him in the mood? Maybe I should open their enclosure, so he feels he can escape? Or? I do have another mature female I could try him with... hmmm...
No one really directly answered you, so here it is... Yes, he is gay. I would place another MM in with him and see if they clean each others pedipalps.

Jeeze, I don't go around sleeping with my fiance in front of people. I hope people don't think I'm gay... Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Maybe you should. Has she layed an egg sac?
 

Rob1985

This user has no status.
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
866
No one really directly answered you, so here it is... Yes, he is gay. I would place another MM in with him and see if they clean each others pedipalps.



Maybe you should. Has she layed an egg sac?
I found my new signature, lol
 

BenjaminBoa

Arachnosquire
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
117
Now I may be wrong but I think its only a Human thing. +1 on the title being so dumb..
Wrong, studies are now showing many species engage in same sex mating with no intent for domination or pecking order. Scientists are hypothesizing that homosexual courtship in animal species is actually better for the gene pool. Because say there are two dogs from the same litter, both carry similar genes so they would not only have to compete with other members of their species but another member who is very similar (the sibling.) Now if the sibling is gay, all the members of the family who carry similar genes no longer have to compete with him and can focus on competing with each other instead. If I remember correctly a gay population of 20% in an animal species increases the gene pool, if the population raises over 40% however the gene pool suffers.

Homosexual courtship has been observed in aves, reptiles, dogs, cats horses... practically everything that has a certain sex, humans just like to anthromorphasize(sp) and pretend like we're special because we're gay, or we're the only <edit> up species with gays.. lol

And as for the dominance thing, while it -can- be a dominating action similar to gang rape it isn't an action most animal species are going to use all the time to show dominance, talk to some dog breeders and you'll find out just how harmful sex can be for the female or male dog. Wolves and dogs for example, a missfire into the anus instead of the vagina can kill the dog or cause rectal prolapse or even cause the dog to get his penis stuck and both can die. It happens all the time, and when two male dogs court, if one is forced into submission the same risks. That isn't something just strict to dogs, most animal species are not designed to have sex very often and run the same risk. Whether or not your dog humps things is your problem not science, there are so many variables in humping behavior that you can't just assign it to being dominant..

On top of that many of those same assertions come from the idiotic belief that dogs have a "alpha" dog who goes around beating up the others till they roll over, and that he/she kills first, eats first, and is the most fit of all other wolves in the pack. That is wrong, that was based on studies with unrelated wolves thrown in a pen and observed. Throw a bunch of anything in a room together and they'll pound on each other for food and sex and they'll either hurt each other or submit. In studies done in the wild it was seen that wolves hardly, if EVER even touch each other, any fighting is generally play/practice for hunting. Who gets the kill? The fastest runner. Who eats first? Alpha mom, ooooh nooo i said alpha.. Maybe I should explain what an alpha dog really is. The alpha wolf is simply the mom and dad of the pack. The other wolves respect them because they were raised by mom and dad, and they feed mom and dad first because... wait for it... she makes the babies =O

when mom and dad are too old to make babies anymore a new member of the pack gets preggo and takes over. Thats all... so no, male mating there is not always a dominance thing.

Oh yeah, if you want to talk about species who have sex a lot, are complex enough to form bonding pairs, and enjoy sex. Look at bonobo monkeys.. Tons of homosexuality, bisexuality, omni... sexuality. They have sex to say hi practically lol.

Long story short, get your heads out of your asses, we're not the single "tainted" species. Being gay is something that jumped off the evolutionary train just like everything else. We're not as special as you thought, huh?

---------- Post added 02-14-2012 at 06:55 PM ----------

THANK YOU BenjaminBoa! All I was trying to do was add a little humor. Hella funny your comment about the GBB and the versi! I appreciate your watching my back (pun intended)! :biggrin:
Haha, no problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jakeh

Arachnopeon
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
8
If the spider was gay, I bet the honey badger wouldnt give a <edit>. No, I am not sorry I just saw that for the first time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jayefbe

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
1,351
Wrong, studies are now showing many species engage in same sex mating with no intent for domination or pecking order. Scientists are hypothesizing that homosexual courtship in animal species is actually better for the gene pool. Because say there are two dogs from the same litter, both carry similar genes so they would not only have to compete with other members of their species but another member who is very similar (the sibling.) Now if the sibling is gay, all the members of the family who carry similar genes no longer have to compete with him and can focus on competing with each other instead. If I remember correctly a gay population of 20% in an animal species increases the gene pool, if the population raises over 40% however the gene pool suffers.
Yes, homosexual behavior has been observed in many other species. I can only think of mammals off the top of my head, but I would guess it happens in other species with complex breeding behaviors.

However, this theory makes no sense from a population genetics standpoint (which is what this is).

*I'm not making any social comment, this is purely evolutionary biological theory*
Let's say there are two 'families', one has the genetic components that produces homosexual behavior in males. The other 'family' does not. Assuming everything is exactly the same, the second family will outcompete the first because they have more reproducing males within the total population. There are some isolated scenarios where it might be beneficial if it's linked to some other altruistic behavior. But saying that 20% homosexual is beneficial for all animals is like saying it's beneficial to have a skewed sex ratio. Which it is not. Sex ratios are 50/50 (in nearly all cases, there are some where it's not and skewed sex ratios have evolved) because of natural selection.

To reiterate, I am about as liberal as they come, so please do not think this is a social comment about sexual orientation.
 

BenjaminBoa

Arachnosquire
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
117
Yes, homosexual behavior has been observed in many other species. I can only think of mammals off the top of my head, but I would guess it happens in other species with complex breeding behaviors.

However, this theory makes no sense from a population genetics standpoint (which is what this is).

*I'm not making any social comment, this is purely evolutionary biological theory*
Let's say there are two 'families', one has the genetic components that produces homosexual behavior in males. The other 'family' does not. Assuming everything is exactly the same, the second family will outcompete the first because they have more reproducing males within the total population. There are some isolated scenarios where it might be beneficial if it's linked to some other altruistic behavior. But saying that 20% homosexual is beneficial for all animals is like saying it's beneficial to have a skewed sex ratio. Which it is not. Sex ratios are 50/50 (in nearly all cases, there are some where it's not and skewed sex ratios have evolved) because of natural selection.

To reiterate, I am about as liberal as they come, so please do not think this is a social comment about sexual orientation.
Lol I wouldn't assume you're prejudice just because you're skeptical of my statement. I'm not totally sure on that, back when I was thinking of going into a biology major my professor was showing me some studies, I'll actually be at school tomorrow. I'll ask him if he can link me to the studies or at least tell me where I can find the information. I may be wrong about the percentages. When I get the exact info I can email it to you or post it on here if you're really interested.
 

jakeh

Arachnopeon
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
8
I got a kick out of this thread. Don't worry about the title, its nice to have some humor amid the serious questions.
And dont worry about offending someone <_<; I'm gay and I thought this was hilarious, the only people who would take offense to this would be overly insecure people (gay or not) and there's no need to cater to their bitchy behavior anyway. Too bad it's not a green bottle blue or a versi, then you could say he's already flamboyant.
+1 by the way, i agree, its a good point, it seems some topics can get pretty heated if not downright mean on this forum sometimes,for example, yes there is a search function, if you see a question as a thread which you know could have been resolved by means of a search, simply dont open it up, your demeaning comments turn people off to other members of the hobby and it only goes to show your desperate need to feel bigger by displaying your dominance through knowledge on arachnids, some people still like the relatively small human interaction of getting a response from another person, if it helps, to all the people who disagree, take a xanax
 

zonbonzovi

Creeping beneath you
Old Timer
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Messages
3,346
OK, I find some of the terminology being tossed about to be, at the very least, weird. Just for clarification's sake, are we talking about parthenogenesis when we speak of animals being "gay" or "homosexual"? No, really, that's an honest question...anyone care to elaborate?

If we are indeed speaking of parthenogenesis then the debate is moot. Anyone that spends any amount of time here(and who is reasonably literate/curious) or that has read an elementary text about the means by which invertebrates replicate themselves knows this. If we're not speaking of procreation, my apologies, carry on with your strangeness...
 

Ciphor

Arachnoprince
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Messages
1,640
Fruit flies can be gay -- or at least males with a particular mutation in a gene called "fruitless" try to court other males.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16179386
Who is surprised a bug called "fruit fly" would be gay?

I personally found this thread quite entertaining, and at the end of the day, that is why I come here. But I agree Zon, pretty strange to talk about gay spiders. Sounds like an emo band "Gay Spiders playing tonight at the Moore theater!". If it's not a band name, it should be.
 

desertanimal

Arachnoknight
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
173
Nope. I don't think they're talking about asexual reproduction.

It's a well-documented problem in domestic rams. There are males that really only want to mate with males, and really won't mate with females, and if they've got characteristics that are desirable for breeding, human intervention is required.

It is certainly not justifiable to claim that all homosexual behavior in non-humans is for the purpose of exhibiting dominance. That claim is no more justified without detailed studies than a counter-claim that it's "for pure love." The available evidence does not suggest that all homosexual behavior in non-human animals is for the purpose of exhibiting dominance. In the above-mentioned case of domestic rams, it's not about dominance. These problem rams prefer to mate with males than with females when given the choice.

There are naturally occurring bonded pairs of male swans. They brood eggs together. They clearly are not sexually monogamous, but they are pair-bonded. They have a lasting pair bond like all other pairs of swans, and they raise offspring together. Interestingly, male pairs have higher reproductive success than heterosexual pairs, because males have more access to resources than females swans. In terms of access to resources, in swans, Male + male > male + female > female + female. This is sort of akin to the fact that gay human male couples have a high representation in the expensive NY neighborhood of Greenwich village, whereas lesbian couples have a very low representation there, because 2 * 0.75 (what males make for the same job) < enough to live in Greenwich village.

Bonobos are apes, not monkeys, but their expression of sexuality is DEFINITELY not only about dominance. They use it for just about everything. It is sometimes about dominance, sort of, but not in the way that you might think. When a female bonobo wants to join a new group, she trails it for a while, and when the dominant female in the group decides that she likes the new female enough to let her join, the sexual interaction that signals that does not involve a dominant sexual position on the part of the dominant animal, but a submissive one. The new female then goes on to have sexual interactions with every other female in the group, and then she's in. For bonobos, sex is like a handshake. It has nuances, just like handshakes do, but it is used as freely, as often, and as communicatively as we use handshakes. Possibly more. It is probably more fair to say that it's like handshakes and hugs, AND sex. Yeah. That's probably more accurate. Instead of a hug, for bonobos, when a kid is throwing a temper tantrum, you do something else for it. In fact I just had a friend show me photos of her study bonobo population yesterday, and she pointed out how bonobo males lose their hair from about their genitals up to their belly buttons because they have so much semen smeared on their bellies all the time from their male-male ventral-ventral interactions that it makes their hair fall out. And they all have both genital and oral warts--infants up to adults. I'm sure you can imagine why that is. It's the go-to affiliative interaction. It is not an agonistic interaction. There is competition in bonobos, and sex is not what they do with each other when they are competing. Sexual interactions are entirely affiliative. They're what you might do AFTER an agonistic interaction, to make up. Or what you do when tension is building, to entirely avoid an agonistic interaction from developing.

This is just a tiny fraction of the homosexual interactions that have been documented in the animal kingdom. If you're really interested in this topic, the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl is probably the go-to source. I have not read it myself, because I am not especially interested enough in the topic to read something like 400 pages that document homosexual activity across the animal kingdom. The reason I am not so interested is because I don't engage in the naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy). If I want to think that what is natural = what is good/ok, then I'll have to sign up for male-perpetrated infanticide, and I'm not up for condoning that in society. But homosexual activity is certainly a common part of the natural world with no convenient sweep-under-the-rug explanation such as "it's for expressing dominance," so if that's important to you to know about, Bagemihl's book is a good place to start. In primates, just FYI, homosexual behavior is not usually an expression of dominance, but when exhibited, is usually an expression of friendship/affiliation. There are all kinds of formalized signals of agonism/dominance/submission in primates, and letting another male hold your balls or play with your penis (which are behaviors also found among non-human primates) simply aren't among them. And I'm sure you guys can imagine why--you're not ABOUT to trust someone who's NOT your friend get that close to important stuff like that!!!

Exclusive homosexual behavior is not particularly common in the animal kingdom. But then, neither is sexual monogamy, even in species with social monogamy and tight pair bonds. ;) Even in the albatross, the pinnacle of pair-bondedness, there's plenty of "somethin' somethin'" on the side. Pairs raise kids. Absolutely. Pairs faithfully raise kids together year after year. Absolutely. But pairs aren't always raising their OWN kids together (well, females are raising their own, but not always those of their male pairmate, and males aren't always raising their own, but some other male probably is). I think it's only been in the last couple of years that an albatross researcher has actually witnessed an extra-pair mating, but it has been known for quite some time that the eggs in the nest didn't always come from the dad on the nest. Both moms and dads are working, when they can, to diversify their genetic portfolios and to avoid putting their "eggs in one basket"--the female putting them in the "basket" of only one male year after year, and the male the reverse, plus the addition of one literal basket.

Anyway, the world of sexual reproduction is an amazing place, and our societally derived, pre-conceived notions of biological reality actually don't do a very good job of describing biological reality. But the dedicated work by biologists is out there. Carpe diem, if you actually care about being correct when you make assertions on this point. If you decide to make being fully educated on this point your mission, you won't be disappointed by the ride.

As far as "being gay" or "being straight," whether non-human animals do this depends on what you mean. For us, this is a claimed identity. There's no reason to think that non-human animals cling to some sort of social identity. They just do what they do and don't worry about it. So the definition of "gay" is up to you. Some people think that pair-bonded male swans count as "gay." Some people wouldn't, because even though those male swans are pair-bonded and raise offspring together as a pair, they obviously have sexual interactions with females, because females have the ova. Personally, I don't think labels for non-human animals are terribly important. These fixed labels are sort of hung on an idea of sexual monogamy, which, although it exists, is quite rare in the animal kingdom (as well as within humans), and which involve a lot more in humans than just descriptions of their sexual activity (e.g., someone can be gay without have sexual interactions, or can even "be" gay while they are engaged exclusively in heterosexual interactions).

That said, I'm not offended by a person asking if a spider is "gay." The distinctions between identity and behavior are subtle, and I can easily do the translation to "Does my male spider only want to mate with other males?" which, given my knowledge of the variation present in sexual tendencies in the animal kingdom, is not an unreasonable question.
 
Last edited:

ZergFront

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,956
Nope, birds have had same-sex pairs, too.

EDIT : Jumped on the band wagon late. X-D
 
Last edited:
Top