Yes. The article refers to "an ongoing discussion on human uniqueness"; I've personally been part of discussions where people have made (entirely incorrect) assertions along the lines of "animals don't engage in reproductively ineffective sexual activity".

I have no difficulty at all in accepting that a paper about bat fellatio was required in order to contradict a belief that fellatio is a human-only behaviour.

Context is everything. Even if what he says is true, what's acceptable as a one-off joke takes an entirely different meaning when it's just the latest in a series of affronts. If you haven't read it already, the other side of the story paints a pretty different picture to the article: http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/c1.jpg http://felidware.com/DylanEvans/c2.jpg

Sounds to me like the guy is socially inept, and unable to tell when he's making her uncomfortable.

1. He asked her to comment on a scientific paper involving sexual behavior in animals.

2. He told her about a book he was reading on Casanova — specifically that he admired Casanova's adaptability to different situations and skill at gambling (Note: This is the emphasis she herself gives; I'm not downplaying any sexual component)

3. He said he would like to do a course on "sinful" behavior such as gambling, in which he might dress like the devil on some occasion

4. He asked her out to dinner, saying she could bring her husband and he would bring his girlfriend. He showed up without his girlfriend, but did bring another companion in her place. At the end of the night he gave her a hug and kissed her cheek "in the presence of [her] husband"

5. He likes to come into her office in the morning and chat, often about technical fields outside of his degree

6. He initially complimented her along the lines of "You look good in that outfit," she told him she didn't appreciate that sort of talk, and since then he has been more distant and kept his conversation with her strictly to scholarly matters

The picture she paints of him is very much that of a friendly guy who likes to talk to his peers about the things he's thinking about. Particularly the incident where she was scandalized that he hugged her and gave her a kiss on the cheek in front of her husband combined with how upset she was that he'd thought about dressing as the devil makes me think this is a culture clash between somebody extremely conservative and somebody much less so.

You'd be surprised at all the things being researched.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/mar/08/highereducat...

(Or apparently "The Third Chimpanzee", some reviewers claim that is a superset of the book).

I've had at least two people point me to information about animal homosexuality in an attempt to get me to change my opinion on certain gay rights topics. I'm pretty sure there was no innuendo.

(It was a pointless exercise, since my objections to the gay rights movement have nothing to do with traditionalist or naturalist arguments.)

That's like calling the white slave land owners "victims" when they were against the abolishment of slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

Also, I don't recall saying I was against gay rights. For the record, I favor giving gays the same set of rights that straight people should be given (as opposed to the set of rights straight people are actually given). But this is widely interpreted by lazy people as meaning I'm against gay rights.

If, as some people claim, marriage is a sacred institution, why is the state involved at all? Who would be OK with having to go to the courthouse to get a baptism license?

For people who object, choosing to attend a church that doesn't perform gay marriages will be no different from choosing a church that wouldn't perform anything else. Churches aren't regulated. (note: this is almost a "let the market decide" argument)

I do not, however, support the rights of fellating bats to have civil unions, because bats are creepy.