Julian Sanchez | September 13, 2005
The New York Times reports that conservatives are all atwitter over March of the Penguins, and the monogamous family values exemplified by the flightless fowl. I wonder if the sentiment extends to the Central Park Zoo's Silo and Roy, doubtless influenced to choose the gay penguin lifestyle by the liberal antarctic media.
ADDENDUM: Just wanted to share a comment by "wet blanket" with the class:
Hurray for penguin monogamy! Now if there was only a scientifically proven theory that connects human behavior with animal behavior. Something like common ancestry or biological factors that shape behavior. But that's crazy talk.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
I was all set to make some sort of (half, I'm sure) witty comment, and then Jennifer hits me in the face with a big ol' sledgehammer of nostalgia.
Jennifer,
I'll have you know that Penguin Lust is wholly incompatible with
the precepts of Scientific Penguinism.
Mediageek--
I sincerely apologize if hitting you in the face with the
sledgehammer of nostalgia results in your going around with the
black eye of anomie.
Michael Bay asked the really important question:
"What Has Our
Society Come To When March Of The Penguins Is The
Blockbuster Hit Of The Summer?"
Am I then to assume that conservatives also approve of parents vomiting pre-chewed food into their children's gullets? Yeah, I could see that.
Why would an intelligent designer make Penguins monogamous yet
give so many other creatures the right to have sex with how every
many partners they desire?
That's just not fair!
What kind of intelligent designer make Penguins monogamous yet
give so many other creatures the right to have sex with how every
many partners they desire?
That's just not fair!
Hurray for penguin monogamy! Now if there was only a scientifically proven theory that connects human behavior with animal behavior. Something like common ancestry or biological factors that shape behavior. But that�s crazy talk.
Is anyone else irritated that our society has become so political that PENGUINS are considered a divisive partisan issue?
SPD: Not just feeding the young via regurgitation, but warming
them by wedging them tightly against one's naked genitals!
And what about that Nat'l Geo special a while back that showed how
over half of all koala births are the result of rape?
Does this mean Penguins were also created in the unique image of god (since monogamy is apparently very important to god)?
Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot for President!
http://www.batman-superman.com/batman/cmp/penguin.html
According to the movie, penguins change mates each year and leave each other for months at a time.
Does this mean Penguins were also created in the unique
image of god
No, they were created in the image of Cole Porter.
Stormy: Yes, penguins are political.
Coming this winter: The Million Penguin March.
From the article: Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review,
told the young conservatives' gathering last month: "You have to
check out 'March of the Penguins.' It is an amazing movie. And I
have to say, penguins are the really ideal example of monogamy.
These things - the dedication of these birds is just
amazing."
Did he miss the part about the penguins being serial monogamists?
That they choose a new mate each year? Sounds like Lowry could just
as well be endorsing divorce and ritual abandonment of the
family.
I think I read somewhere that most penguin couples are simply living together without benefit of matrimony.
It should be noted that Tennessee Tuxedo had no respect for
authority.
Also we should be proud that we got this far down the board without
a Monty Python reference...
Let my just preface this by saying that I love penguins. They
are by far the best animal on the planet, because they are
awesome.
I agree with Stormy: what kind of world is it where
flightless birds living in a vast frozen wasteland
are a political point? Although I think the NYT story is one of
those HI stories that extrapolates a trend from a tiny sampling,
that anybody could think serially monogomous 3-ft birds should be
an example of anything other than awesome birds is just sad.
The movie is just about
Emporer Penguins, there are
17-species of penguin. Some of which are found in
warm
water.
Lowry is just the sort of sick monster that would inaccurately represent the mating habits of birds!
SPD: Not just feeding the young via regurgitation, but
warming them by wedging them tightly against one's naked
genitals!
Yes, but that wouldn't exactly work for Chilly Willy, now would it?
:)
This seems like a giant non-sequitor. How is this evidence of
intelligent design? What kind of designer would make animals nearly
freeze to death to procreate?
"To Andrew Coffin, writing in the widely circulated Christian
publication World Magazine, that is a winning argument for the
theory that life is too complex to have arisen through random
selection.
"That any one of these eggs survives is a remarkable feat - and,
some might suppose, a strong case for intelligent design," he
wrote. "It's sad that acknowledgment of a creator is absent in the
examination of such strange and wonderful animals. But it's also a
gap easily filled by family discussion after the film."
No ID-The same god that would make platypi. Or those odd little worms that live near sulfurous vents on the ocean floor. Or people who can't deal with the simple proposition that life adapts to its environment. It's almost as if the species most likely to survive in a given environment had been selected somehow.
Sounds like Lowry could just as well be endorsing divorce
and ritual abandonment of the family.
Well, certainly Newt Gingrich would...
"Why would an intelligent designer make Penguins monogamous yet
give so many other creatures the right to have sex with how every
many partners they desire?
That's just not fair!"
My understanding (very limitted) is that monogamy has value mother
critters that require a father to maximize the chance of survival
for their offspring, but has no value to mother critters where the
father cannot be useful at that task.
For a human father (and a penguin father too, perhaps) this means
that he has to have some degree of certainty that it is his
offspring, his genes, that will survive, not some other
man's.
For a human mother, being selective about which man's penis gets
her pussy, allows her to select a father who will help in the
offspring's development, thereby maximizing the chance that her
genes will survive.
As far as I can tell, their nothing about manogamy that be traced
to religion. Instead, it is completely natural.
Not just feeding the young via regurgitation, but warming
them by wedging them tightly against one's naked
genitals!
I, for one, try very hard not to put anything cold against
my naked genitals.
"Coming this winter: The Million Penguin March."
The Penguins!
United!
Can Nev-Ooh, fish! Fish! Fish!
waddle waddle waddle
jdog:
monogamy is natural for some species, but not all species
if conservatives want to point at behaviors of animals for humans
to emulate, (which I realize, they don't really want to do, unless
the behavior coincides with their biblically based belief systems)
it seems logical to look a species that is much more closely
related to us than a species of bird: that's right, I'm talking
about the bonobo, or "lesser chimpanzee"
whereas chimps solve social conflicts by violent interactions,
bonobos solve social conflicts by sexual interactions. if two
individuals are "fighting", they'll rub their genitals together to
make nice with each other
I want to see Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson display their
Christian, brotherly love for one another by rubbing their penises
together on the 700 club
I, for one, try very hard not to put anything cold against
my naked genitals.
Some people do, though. The other night I was channel-surfing and
caugh a few minutes of that Talk Sex show with the
dirty-talkin' grandma on Oxygen. There was a discussion of ice
cubes and oral sex. And did you know some women even put ice
inside their ... well, I can scarcely credit it. But Sue
the dirty-talkin' grandma warned against doing it too long, or you
can get, erm, freezer burn. And personal advice from me -- run ice
under water before you put it against your skin or anyone else's.
Otherwise it can stick.
Hey, speaking of naturalistic metaphors, what happens when the Monogamous March of the Penguins meets the Hungry Leopard Seal of Infidelity?
I was gonna ask if there are gay penguins. ...and if there are,
I was gonna ask how gay penguins find each other amidst all that
serial monogamy, and then I saw this comment...
And what about that Nat'l Geo special a while back that showed
how over half of all koala births are the result of
rape?
...and I thought, well I hope gay penguins aren't like gay koalas!
...but then it hit me that just because koala births are
the result of rape, doesn't mean that gay koala sex is a
result of rape. ..anyway, that might be true of penguins too.
This would be an interesting experiment. Take, you know, some
penguins and wait for that penguin time of the year and then
separate the penguins by sex. ...and, well, see if they go for each
other.
I don't think it would have any relevance to the human condition or
anything, I mean, I don't think I've heard that homo sapiens are
gay because, at some point, their choices were limited. ...I just
think it'd be interesting.
...I'll have to work on it down at the shelter.
I didn't see the movie, but I seem to recall that when adult
penguins take young swimming, when the adult is ready to go it just
makes sure that the number of young is equal to the number of young
it brought, not necessarily the same young. It takes a
village?
I saw a movie once and this guy said that if a goose dies, its mate
will look for the dead goose for the rest of its life.
I once read a study on Canadian geese. You might have noticed
that, sometimes, when they're migrating, one of the lines on the
"V" formation is longer than the other. The biologist wanted to
know why.
He looked at wind currents, checked the health of geese that had
been captured--perhaps there was less stress on one side of the "V"
given the direction of the wind, he thought?
...He thought, perhaps it was generational? ...Perhaps some are
stronger fliers on one side than the other? ...Maybe one of them
ended up on one side or the other realtive to how much they'd eaten
recently?
...None of it panned out.
In the end, the researcher deduced that when you see a "V"
formation of Canadian geese, and one side of the "V" line is longer
than the other, the reason the line is longer is because there
are more geese in the line on that side!
Having seen the movie, I want to mention that this monogomy is
only for one breeding cycle.
So it seems I should be siring one child at a time with as many
different woman as will have me.
Ladies, please take a number ;)
Personally, I'll flock with the penguins in
Madagascar.
They break out of the zoo and hijack a ship to get "home" to
Antarctica. (Via dropping the lion, zebra, girraffe, etc. off on
Madagascar.) None of that swimming-all-the-way stuff for
them.
Then there's the scene when they finally make it "home."
For a long minute they stand just off the bow of the ship in a
raging blizard. Finally the leader says, "Well. This sucks."
And they sail the ship back to Madagascar where they can work on
their tans.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245