Drinking coffee, listening to Trent Reznor’s new EP on my iPod, looking for anti-gay wingnuts to write about, and then I find paydirt.
Vanessa Woods is an evolutionary anthropologist based out of Duke University, and the author of a new book called The Bonobo Handshake. In her work, she “studies the cognitive development of chimpanzees and bonobos at sanctuaries in the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo.”
Vanessa is not the wingnut we will be lampooning. No, the wingnut came out of the corn in response to a post she wrote about the behavior of the misunderstood bonobo, which included this:
Bonobos have gay sex. For bonobos, sex is a mechanism to reduce tension. And you can’t talk about two females rubbing clitorises together until they orgasm in documentaries, intelligent design classes, or to right wing demographics who believe homosexuality is unnatural.
Bonobos are not considered to be family friendly, despite the fact that children can see people cut up, blown up and shot before 8pm on television.
When it comes to scientists, even scientists who I like and admire, only ever refer to ‘our closest living relative, the chimpanzee’. There is never any mention that we have TWO closest living relatives, the chimpanzee and the bonobo.
Read that whole post, because it’s fascinating that right-wing politics and culture are so out of touch with and frightened of reality that they’re unable to acknowledge the existence of animals who refuse to hear the good news of forced heterosexuality. Vanessa goes on to explain how important it is that we study bonobos because they share 98.7% of our DNA, yet have evolved as a species almost entirely without war, without conflict, and without violence in general, unlike most of their primate relatives, homo sapiens included.
So wouldn’t you know a local wingnut pastor in Durham felt the need to respond to Woods with a letter. This “bonobos have peaceful gay sex all the time!” thing has confused Pastor Wes from the Bahama Baptist Church!
I think we would probably differ on the implications of your research regarding the naturalness of homosexuality, but as I stated, it is very interesting.
Of course they would differ. Vanessa studies it from an educated scientific perspective, while the pastor is only able to work with his biases and old dusty books about religion.
With sin, I believe what Scripture says, when it states that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Not only are there individual sins, but also a corruption due to sin. One of these particular sins listed in Scripture is homosexuality.
Bonobos didn’t give each other reach-arounds until that damn Eve obeyed the talking snake.
I have a four-year old son named Owen who loves animals. He stays up at night with a flashlight looking through books in his bed, and says things like, “I’m doing research on whales.” You guys would instantly connect :).
When I read your article about bonobos, I of course, thought of Owen. He would love them. But, I had to ask the question, “Am I comfortable with him learning about bonobos and their behaviors?”
Male killer whales ride each others’ dorsal fins all gay-like. Better make sure Owen doesn’t hear about that, either. Better yet, make sure you don’t expose him to any book-larnin’ at all.
If I’m honest, I would say my first reaction was to shield him from these animals because of their behavior. This wouldn’t be uncharacteristic for us, since there are lots of animal behaviors that are difficult for a four-year old to understand (i.e. mating, violence, etc…). However, what’s different about this particular behavior is that in an orthodox biblical position, homosexuality is a sin… but animals don’t sin.
But if animals don’t sin, but they’re gay for each other, what does this mean?! How will we rationalize this, in light of everything we, without any evidence, believe to be true about the world and…oh yeah. Told you he was going to get around to…
It seems to me that this behavior reveals a sense of brokenness in the natural world. Paul spoke of the unnaturalness of homosexuality, “men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men…”(Rom. 1:27). So, what he says is unnatural, now looks to be natural! But, just as natural disasters aren’t normative, neither is homosexual activity within animals. The creation itself is marred with the effects of sin (i.e. death).
The missing verses of Genesis, where that wretched Eve woman took the first bite of the fruit of the Naughty Tree, which set off a chain reaction of bonobo ladies learning how to scissor and bonobo gentlemen suddenly having the urge to help a buddy out ten or twelve times a day.
Vanessa Woods’ reply was a very respectful version of “Um, dude, I study bonobos, and this is what they do. I’m sorry that you’re worried about the moral implications of their peaceful use of sex for fun and conflict resolution, but whatever floats your boat?”
I should point out, of course, that Poe’s Law is very much in effect here, as this is extremely difficult to tell apart from one of my favorite The Onion pieces of all time, “Transgendered Sea Anemone Denounced As ‘Abomination’ By Clergy.”
So there’s your morning wingnut. Homosexuality exists throughout nature not because it’s part of the natural order, but because a silly, easily led lady took some fruit from a talking snake. Duly noted!
(h/t Jesus’ General, who wrote one of his famous letters to Pastor Wes as well)
When I read this, I realize the inadequacy of our education budget at Truth Wins Out. To enlighten such people, we might need to enter the software or diamond business to fund opening their minds.
Those sinful monkeys!
If Adam and Eve didn’t have the knowledge of good and evil before they ate the apple how were they supposed to know it was wrong to eat the apple?
Pastor Wes is also showing his total ignorance of the latest research from *real* scholars. The only ‘homosexuality’ that Paul was talking about was pederasty and the anal rape (made as painful as possible) by men who were socially superior as another way to assert their dominance over men who were their social inferiors. The book all about this, which blows Wes out of the water is ‘Paul Among the People….’ by Sarah Ruden.
ps..I think Bonobos are more highly evolved than the religious right.
Pastor Wes needs to stop his child reading. Some day those books are going to teach the kid something that Pastor Wes’s superstitions can’t explain and it will be all over for the kid and religion.
What strikes me as much as the ignorance is the equally profound paranoia that the moment a child finds out that homosexuality exists, that child will instantly become homosexual. Is it THAT big a temptation that it can convert a straight kid to gay just to find out that monkeys have gay sex?
A lot of straight men in particular are scared to death that they might somehow become gay themselves if they accidentally do something or other or act some way or other–like if they wear a pink shirt it might mean they are gay. What’s horrible about this type of aggressive stupidity and paranoia is that it means these people would rather that gays and lesbians did not exist at all, because our very existence is somehow tempting people to “become gay.”
Pastor Wes is sweating bullets every minute that little Owen might turn out gay–the ultimate nightmare. Stay tuned on that kid. There’s a good chance he’ll be a go-go boy in the pride parade in about 15 years.
That’ an excellent point that you’ve made in comment no. 2, Priya.
I’d just like to add another. If God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, why did he put the damn thing there in the first place — and right in the middle of the garden, just where it was likely to excite attention and curiosity? And what purpose was it meant to serve? Doubtless some would plead that he did it to test them, but if God is omniscient, then he didn’t need to test them: he must have known in advance that if he set the test they’d fail it, thus spoiling the perfection of his creation.
Good point William – I never thought of that angle.
Priya– that’s the problem with omniscience. You lack any kind of an excuse.
Since the catholic priesthood is a gift from god, he must be really thrilled that so many of them are pedophiles. vJust what he wanted, I’m sure.
That plot hole always bugged me too-if he didn’t want them to eat the magic piece of fruit, the easiest way to keep it from happening was to put it where they’d never find it-and not even tell them it existed.
Then’s of course there’s the whole business of the snake-an animal that doesn’t even have vocal chords-not only being able to speak, but also acquire the language skills needed to talk to a human.
And God, upon discovering Adam and Eve’s transgression, going, “I did not see THAT coming at all!” Infinitely wise my a*s.
Why can’t people admit that whole story’s pure mythology?
And that it’s not even GOOD mythology at that!
GOOD mythology actually teaches us something about archetypes, about the human condition, etc. But the Adam & Eve story is pure crap, meant to provide a subtext for controlling people.
More specifically women. But they even manage to get THAT
…wrong. When Christian fundamentalists try to use the story of Adam and Eve to justify making women second-class citiazens, they usually cite the Bible quote the “Adam was not deceived.” Which means that, unlike Eve, who was innocent and didn’t realize what she was doing when she took the bite of the enchanted fruit, Adam knew exactly what he was doing. So the more corrupt person of the two should be the one making decisions?
“whatever floats your boat”
or whatever lifts your luggage