The pitfalls of anthropomorphic interpretation of animal behavior in discussions on the aspects of human sexual behavior

Abstract

Attitudes towards various manifestations of human sexual behavior remain one of the actual legal and medical problems for both society and specialists. About forty years ago medical and moral understanding of the norm of sexual behavior was universal and unambiguous, but this situation has changed significantly over the past decades. In some societes, the principle of the so-called social homonormativity – the understanding of same-sex sexual behavior and self-identification as a form of medical and moral norms – has been institutionalized. In societies in which the understanding of the norm of sexual behavior is not based on homonormativity, some political movements and organizations actively pursue their goals to such a change in medical, moral and legal principles, which consolidates any forms of social activity based on homonormativity. One of the claims used by these movements is the assertion that "homosexuality is a kind of norm for humans, because it is common among more than 1500 species of animals". The pitfall with this statement is that it is based on the anthropomorphic interpretation of animal behavior, as well as on the selective transfer of the phenomena of the animal world to human life. In this review article, the authors consistently disprove all aspects of the application of the claim that "homosexual behavior is prevalent in the animal kingdom" in a discussion on the topic of same-sex human behavior. Interpretation of the observed cases of same-sex behavior in animals to assess any medical, moral or legal normativity of the same-sex behavior in human beings is biased, it avoids other forms of non-productive behavior of animals, which, within an anthropomorphic interpretation, can be used as phenomena that justify human incest, child abuse or bestiality.