Comments on: Just How Much Sex Are We Talking About?

By: Jim Moore

Jim Moore — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 15:24:32 +0000

There is certainly a difference between bonobos and chimpanzees in sexual behavior (using broad definition of sexual); what exactly it is, is less clear.

Bonobos are known to engage in sociosexual behavior in response to tension or stress. These observations come from a group of infants whose mothers have (presumably) recently been shot, and they placed into a cage with a bunch of strangers and cared for by humans. No matter how loving and experienced the care, that has to be stressful and that fact considered. As to high T explaining sexual behavior – hormone levels can in principle be influenced by behavior; could the ‘sexual’ behavior contribute to high T? Or the conditions in general – normally stress suppresses T but need to consider the possibility…

Chimpanzees in the same situation do not respond the same way, that’s important and interesting.

By: anthropologyworks » Anthro in the news 6/7/10

anthropologyworks » Anthro in the news 6/7/10 — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 02:03:57 +0000

[...] Bonobo mojo Vanessa Woods concludes her series of guest posts for Discover with a post about bonobo sex in which she responds to skeptics who say that reports of frequent sex [...]

By: SkepticalScientist

SkepticalScientist — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:06:27 +0000

Ms. Woods is selling her book. The more flamboyant and controversial the better for her. Notice the pretty pictures. Science doesn’t have to be dry but her approach makes one doubt the science even if the conclusion is valid. Chimps also use lots of positions (and even some monkeys e.g. capuchins). If her comparative data were presented properly there wouldn’t be so many doubts. But that might not sell books.

By: Cait

Cait — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:19:26 +0000

Ms. Woods has never seen a bonobo in the wild.

By: Jane

Jane — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 16:26:59 +0000

Of course sexual play in the morning before, during, and after the meal doesn’t exactly show that bonobos are more sexual than chimps overall. It shows they are more sexual in the morning around/during that meal.

By: gillt

gillt — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:39:23 +0000

I know you were referring to the chimps, which is why comparing bonobos to chimps in this particular circumstance and then making a generality about overall rates of sexual behavior–”Don’t let anyone tell you bonobos have equal or less sex than chimpanzees–” is suspect. Obviously chimps have sex, so what sense does it make to use a time period when they were having zero sex?

I’m simply taking a skeptical view of her methodology, nothing else.

And this line: “I observed the nursery in the context where the most sexual behavior occurs, when they eat together” obviously refers to the bonobos, because of this line: “I compared the infant bonobos in the Lola nursery…”

By: ponderingfool

ponderingfool — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:14:34 +0000

gilt I believe it is Vanessa Woods who is writing this series not Chris. Given the blog is run by Chris and Sheril, guest posts like Vanessa’s are listed as either by Chris or Sheril (in this case Chris).
“This is the last in a series of guest posts from Vanessa Woods, author of the new book, Bonobo Handshake. ”

The no sexual encounters line you are quoting for me was not for the bonobos but rather for the chimps (hence no bars corresponding to the chimps in the graph while you do see bars corresponding t the bonobos in the graph). No red bars is what you were asking about gilt. The reason is because maybe Vanessa observed 0 such interactions. Not sure if the line: “I observed the nursery in the context where the most sexual behavior occurs, when they eat together” refers to the bonobos, chimps, or both.

By: Rhea

Rhea — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 21:51:00 +0000

Chimps are no slouches at sex. I don’t have the reference, but I recall an account of an adult female chimp in heat who had sex 30 times in an hour with six different males, and then went off in the bushes with the youngest one. This was, I believe, an observation in the wild.

You refer to bonobo infants, but the ones in the photos, especially 2, 3 and 4, don’t look like infants. How old are we talking about?

By: gillt

gillt — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:54:37 +0000

Ponderingfool: ‘Maybe that is the point (i.e. no sexual encounters)”

That doesn’t work, because Chris said “I observed the nursery in the context where the most sexual behavior occurs, when they eat together.”

Based on his observation that’s not true for chimps, and so it’s a false comparison. Or he simply missed the chimp behavior. Either way zero recorded sexual encounters is not useful here.

By: Nullius in Verba

Nullius in Verba — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:31:40 +0000

Not that I doubt that there are differences, but you quote a statement talking about bonobos in the wild, and seek to refute it with a case of bonobos in captivity. You say that these youngsters haven’t learnt their sexual behaviour from their parents, but the articles cited seek to explain the difference through the environment of easy and plentiful food, and no danger. Are you sure you are answering the right question?

They also question whether genital-genital contact is necessarily “sex”. That sounds like a reasonable question.

Some other points I’d be interested in more commentary on…
Question from the first article: “Why do females give birth only every five to seven years, despite frequent sexual activity?”

“As an example of the possibly distorting impact of provisioning, Hohmann noted that the Wamba females had far shorter intervals between births than those at Lomako.”

“science still needs to explain the physical superiority of males: why would evolution leave that extra bulk in place, if no use was made of it?”

The articles here read as being ‘defensive’, as if it was emotionally important to the author that there be these differences between bonobos and chimpanzees. Again, I don’t see any problem with the idea that there are – and such matters as animal altruism I regard as far less controversial than is suggested – but I can’t help feeling uneasy about the apparent emotional investment in the conclusions.

The behaviour of dogs is very different to that of wolves, and is in many ways more “human-like”. It is very easy to get closely related animals behaving very differently, and it doesn’t necessarily imply anything about other species.