Talk:Guinea pig/Archive 6

message: how do i add "skinny pigs" in the "see also" section? they are hairless guinea pigs so they are closely related. thanks! Tetrabert 04:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use the format above when introducing a new topic. Skinny pigs do not need to be put in the see also section, as there is a link to the Domestic varieties of guinea pigs article of which Skinny pigs are a related topic. They have a link already. VanTucky 05:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Skinny pigs

message: If someone has a good book cite for this, it would be preferable to Cavy Spirit. But I thought it was important to mention mounting as normal behavior, as same-sex mounting related to dominance often causes consternation among new owners. However, I will try to find a cite for a fact that I haven't been able to so far: that aggressive mounting among females may be a sign of ovarian cysts. VanTucky 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wagner will probably have something about this, but I had to return that, too... Chubbles 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wagner doesn't mention anything about homosexuality; this might be very new research, and I know that homosexual behavior has been observed in guinea pigs, but I don't know how common it is. Mounting behavior among male cagemates, as far as I can tell, isn't an indication of homosexuality but rather part of a nonsexual pattern of aggression. Chubbles 20:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I can't think of any resource that mentions it as anything other than dominance-related among males. That's why I prefaced it by saying that. But among females I believe the general consensus is that in addition to social hierarchy, it is related to sexual behavior. Female guinea pigs experience hormonal surges related to ovulation just like many other mammals, and in same-sex groups this hormonal surge (and apparentely also hormonal problems due to ovarian cysts) can trigger sexual mounting of other females. VanTucky 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Until I find a better source, could we include a sentence following the new one that says, "Some rescue organizations have also claimed to observe homosexual mounting as displays of dominance unrelated to mating behaviors." with the cite from Cavy Spirit? VanTucky 20:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you cue me to the spot where it says that? I couldn't find it... Chubbles 20:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bolded list farther down on the page giving advice on safe/unsafe behaviors when introducing new cavies. VanTucky 20:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm getting confused about the use of the word "homosexuality" here. The rescue site observes same-sex mounting as a nonsexual form of dominance, but that is not homosexual mounting, which would imply mounting between members of the same sex for the purpose of sexual gratification, right? Chubbles 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess same-sex would be a more correct term, but homosexuality refers to any same-sex sexual behavior regardless of reason. It really depends on if you consider mounting (a sexual behavior) not based on sexual reasonings still a sexual act. VanTucky 20:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if mounting is done for nonsexual reasons, it would no longer be a sexual behavior... I mean, I don't have a degree in gender studies or anything, but the definitions seem awful confused to me here. Chubbles 20:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Homosexuality means alot of different things. But to my understanding, mounting is a sexual behavior whether it's done for social dominance reasons or not. If I started pawing your wife's chest, and said it was just a greeting you'd still consider it sexual. And since it's same-sex, it's homosexual. Same-sex is really just a nice layman's term for homosexual that doesn't sound so offensive to homophobes anyway. I guess you could think of dominance-related mounting as a simulated sexual behavior. But sexual nonetheless. VanTucky 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thinking in examples here, if I visit a male proctologist, he may stick his finger up my rear. Sticking fingers in other people's rears is sometimes a sexual behavior, and if I visited this proctologist at a bar on Saturday night and we did this, it would be a sexual behavior, and thus homosexual activity. But if we did it in his office as part of a prostate exam, that would not be a sexual behavior, and would not be homosexual activity, even though it would be same-sex contact. Chubbles 20:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same with kisses as greetings. But this is different because it is directly simulating a sexual behavior to establish social hierarcy. So the doctor example doesn't really mesh, because he'd have to simluate a sexual behavior directly as part of his medical exam. I hate to get into details here, but I think it's pretty obvious that a colonoscopy and anal sex are conducted in very mechanically dissimilar manners. The mounting of guinea pigs is exactly the same, minus actual penetration. If we're trying to think plainly here without semantics, if you ask any pet owner what it looks like when their two female guinea pigs chase eachother about and hump eachother, they say it looks like they're trying to mate. There's even an example in this vey talk page's archives. VanTucky 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the distinction I was making was one of intention; in one example, the proctologist is checking for enlarged prostates, and in the other he's getting his rocks off. Of course, talking about "intention" with an animal as stupid as the guinea pig is a little fuzzy. (The OED has a great quote: "There ain't a mouse in all Epsom can be muter, nor a guinea-pig dumber.") The issue of penetration, I think, is actually central; if there is penetration, that would be a much more significant indication of homosexual tendency, whereas if there isn't, I can't see that as anything more than rear-side jumping attack. Chubbles 20:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There must be something intelligent published about this... Chubbles 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we can add something about it, but I just want to make sure it's worded properly. I just added a short sentence, can be changed. We can add something specifically about homosexuality too, if you want, but I'd really like to have a good source (like a peer-reviewed paper) for it first. Chubbles 21:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't just want to say "rear-mounted attacks" that makes it sound like they try and bite eachother from the rear or something. It is actual simulated mounting. VanTucky 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  homosexuality/mounting 

message: I read through the article, and though sometimes I miss things, it seems two important yet easily overlooked facts are missing...
1. Guinea pigs are not sexually dimorphic in size or markings.
:That's mentioned in the paragraph about sexing; I'll link to that article. Chubbles 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about size? I was under the impression that the sexes weren't differing in size. VanTucky 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Terril, Wagner, and Richardson all mentioned a general size difference in weight. Chubbles 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that should be added in behavior somewhere, I guess. I returned all my sources...back to the library, again? Chubbles 04:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt it's racist, but I don't know where the name comes from. Chubbles 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just joking. It's a bit odd is all. VanTucky 22:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Gentlemen, if you want to know about something like this, you should try searching the new-fangled online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. It generally has the answers to questions of this type. For instance the article Abyssinian (cat) almost certainly gives the origin of the name as a breed name and that name will very likely have been applied to other animals bred to have the same type of coat. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How politely condescending of you. I had in fact, thought it was by no stretch of imagination impossible that other breeds of animal with the name Abyssinian might have had an affect on the guinea pig named Abyssinian. However, you might have noticed if you'd taken a look for yourself and not just shot your mouth off, that the general characteristics of coat or other factors of appearance of the Abyssinian cat are in no way comparable to the Abyssinian guinea pig. zip. zero. Furthermore, there is a fairly obvious (if loose) etymological association between the land where the cat came from (Egypt) and the name Abyssinia. Guinea pigs are not native to Africa and the breed Abyssinian is much much older than any recorded export of guinea pigs to Africa. Thanks for the tip. VanTucky 23:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why thank you, condescending is what I do best, <grin>.  Although I must admit I was aiming for gentle irony this time (he said with gentle irony). But I wouldn't write off the cats just yet. The coat type is the common factor -- not Africa. The cats may lack the rosettes but they share the stiff/resilient hair type and the original "ticked" hair colouring pattern. That's not quite so obvious nowadays because of efforts by breeders to breed other colours of both animal. However the cat colouring/pattern is sometimes known as "agouti", showing that the link between the cat and the cavy is recognised on the feline side too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shit, now I've got proof that I have zero sense of humor. Chubbles doesn't think my joke is funny and I insult someone making ironic suggestions. Ah well. ces la vie. Have you seen an image of a Aby. cavy? An Aby cat doesn't have rosettes anything like that. And Agouti isn't the standard sole color for Abyssinian cavies either. It was just the sole color for all guinea pigs originally. It may very well be that the Aby cavy breed was developed via a mutation well after multi-colored cavies were. Anyway, the similarity still doesn't explain where the name came from in my view. If it was that simple don't you think a published source would've mentioned it by now? VanTucky 19:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unmentioned facts 

message: another theroy for the orijen of guinea pig is some explorer thought he was in new guinea and thought that they sounded like pigs
 
could someone please reserch and add that if its trueDog jumper100 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: name