Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Monkeys Pay for Monkey Porn

Posted by michael on Sat Jan 29, 2005 03:33 AM
from the is-that-a-banana-in-your-cage-or... dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Give a monkey some spending money, and he'll blow it on pictures of women monkeys. He'll also pay to see dominant monkeys. But you'll have to pay him to look at inferior monkeys. That's the upshot of a study out of Duke that was designed to explore the 'social machinery of the brain with an eye toward helping autism patients.' Next up -- seriously -- the researchers want to run the same test on Joe Sixpack (sans the monkey business)."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Do they - ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:34AM (#11512231)


    Do they spank the monkey as part of the experiment?

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jtbauki (838979) on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:35AM (#11512235)
    ....the next time you get caught looking at porn, you can point to this article and say, "Hey it's not me, it's evolution, baby."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:35AM (#11512236)
    Grunt, grunt, grunt ...Screeeeeeeeeeech!
  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mattiwatti (844167) on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:36AM (#11512243)
    Where can I download this monkey porn?
  • err... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Heem (448667) on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:37AM (#11512247) Homepage Journal
    FTA:
    The rhesus macaque monkeys also splurged on photos of top-dog counterparts


    Anyone else get a completely different meaning out of that then they intended?

  • by raehl (609729) <{moc.oohay} {ta} {113lhear}> on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:41AM (#11512257) Homepage
    Crack.

    Oh, wait, this wasn't a poll?
  • No boozers? (Score:3, Funny)

    by themast (852986) on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:42AM (#11512259)
    What, no 'fermented banana juice' to go with that fresh monkey pr0n?
  • by wileycoyoteacme (319236) on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:43AM (#11512263)
    i stopped paying for porn the day i discovered a web browser!
  • experiment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BorgCopyeditor (590345) on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:49AM (#11512286)
    Give a monkey some spending money, and he'll blow it on pictures of women monkeys.

    Would there be anything wrong with this sentence: give a human some spending money and he'll blow it on pictures of female humans?

    I guess I'm objecting to the notion that being male is the norm.

    • That's what TFA's headline says: Monkeys Pay to See Female Monkey Bottoms.

      It would be interesting to know if they really only tried it with a male watcher / female picture combination. If so that would give an interesting insight into the researcher's minds...

      Another question then would arise: were the researchers male or female...

    • by Feztaa (633745) on Saturday January 29 2005, @05:29AM (#11512448) Homepage
      I guess I'm objecting to the notion that being male is the norm.

      Don't be silly. Women only exist on the computer screen.
    • >>Give a monkey some spending money, and he'll blow it on pictures of women monkeys.

      > Would there be anything wrong with this sentence: give a human some spending money and he'll blow it on pictures of female humans?

      >I guess I'm objecting to the notion that being male is the norm.

      Why are there way more women on magazine covers than men? Because in general, men like looking at pretty women... and woman like looking at pretty women too, albeit for reasons other than sexual attraction in most
      • Re:experiment (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Skinny Rav (181822) on Saturday January 29 2005, @07:58AM (#11512763)
        Why are there way more women on magazine covers than men? Because in general, men like looking at pretty women... and woman like looking at pretty women too, albeit for reasons other than sexual attraction in most cases.


        Well, women look at pretty women as at dominant females. It is the same as posters of Jordans and Beckhams and who else in male teenagers' rooms.

        But true, this is weird. While guys like to watch sportsmen and actors (dominant males) and women like to watch actors and models (for sexual reasons), magazines with female photos on the cover sell better - and AFAIK it has been proven. Men are allowed on covers only if accompanied by a woman or with a baby or, seldom, if they are really, really mega celebrities.

        Raf
  • by tiktok (147569) on Saturday January 29 2005, @03:55AM (#11512300) Homepage
    Peel a banana for a monkey, and he'll be fed for a day.

    Teach a monkey to surf the Internet, and he'll find his own peelers.
  • by cgenman (325138) on Saturday January 29 2005, @04:03AM (#11512315) Homepage
    Give a monkey some spending money, and he'll blow it on pictures of women monkeys.

    I wish they would stop referring to the students at Duke like that.
  • I for one welcome our new female monkey porn dealing researcher overlords!
  • Oh, great (Score:5, Funny)

    by andreMA (643885) on Saturday January 29 2005, @04:30AM (#11512361)
    Just when the AOLers finally got booted from USENET [slashdot.org], we'll have (another) group of primates arriving to endlessly post "MEEEE TOOO!!!!!"

    Or perhaps the change will raise the overall level of discourse. Hard to say.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 29 2005, @04:45AM (#11512382)
    In a very un-Slashdot-like manner, I have actually read the article (It was on Fark.com before Slashdot picked it up). I find the following part interesting:
    Curiously, the monkeys in the test hadn't had any direct physical contact with the monkeys in the photos, so they didn't have personal experience with who was hot and who was not.

    "So, somehow, they are getting this information by observation -- by seeing other individuals interact," said Michael Platt of the Duke University Medical Center.

    So, the question is: How are the monkeys able to see who is dominant and who is not?
    • So, the question is: How are the monkeys able to see who is dominant and who is not?

      Aww, geee, I dunno. It's just a wild and crazy guess on my part, and I certainly don't know exactly how it works with monkeys, but as far as squirrels go, I reckon that this squirrel [recollectionbooks.com] is a dominant one.

      • by Dogtanian (588974) on Saturday January 29 2005, @07:06AM (#11512658) Homepage
        There are clues.. I have theories.. For example:

        A fat female is unattractive because it looks like she is pregnant.


        Funny how not all societies associate fat woman with unattractive, then. It's speculated that in our society, fat women are unattractive because food (particularly fattening foods) is plentiful (and hence fatness is common), and associated with being unfit; whereas better off people eat healthy food and keep fit.

        A bold man is attractive because his head looks like a big.. well, you know what.

        Assuming you or others find bald heads attractive.... but that's not universally accepted. And frankly, most bald men don't have a red, sunburnt head with a line down the middle, do they?

        People in uniforms are attractive, because they they look alike, which means they were so successful that they were able to multiply so much.

        More plausible theory (again, not mine); people in uniforms (well, men at least) are more likely to be in dangerous professions where they are willing to risk their lives to protect people. Which would extend to their mate (female) and child; good mate --> attractive.

        It's interesting that you don't hear of many strippograms dressing as traffic wardens, after all.

        The above points apply to humans, but it's the same with monkeys I guess.

        I'd doubt they apply to humans; they seem like some half-baked ideas you pulled off the top of your head. Although maybe you should dress in the uniform of a dictator of a banana republic and see if the monkeys at the local zoo find that attractive?
  • That we'd get anything other than a stream of 'spank the monkey' jokes, I suppose.
    I mean, I'll grant you that they're easy... But for all that the circumstances of the study make for plenty of nice crass jokes, it does raise some very interesting questions - hands up who else thought watching sports, and porn, were singularly human proclivities?

    Apart from the mild fascination attatched to what this tells us about our extra-fuzzy relatives, it gives an interesting perspective on what it is to be human, how divorced are we from our fellow animals? From those things we like to refer to as 'animal instincts'?

    But, since it's all too easy.. I'll let you construct a joke based on dominant monkeys, and American politics, as an exercise for the reader.
  • >Give a monkey some spending money, and he'll blow it on pictures of women monkeys

    Give researchers some money, and they'll spend it on monkey porn
  • Bestiality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by britneys 9th husband (741556) on Saturday January 29 2005, @04:57AM (#11512401) Homepage Journal
    Ok, silly question...

    If a male monkey gets off on looking at pictures of naked (human) women, is that considered bestiality?
  • by Ceriel Nosforit (682174) <cerielNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday January 29 2005, @06:59AM (#11512642) Homepage
    http://www.hotornot.com/r/?eid=BRG8K8H&key=EUB [hotornot.com]
    I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry...
    *GG*
  • From the article: "One of the main problems in people with autism is that they don't find it very motivating to look at other individuals," Platt said.

    This is an attitude of what those comfortable with Autism call a "curebie". I am the parent of a wonderful boy who happens to have autsim, and I can tell you, he is no need of a "cure".

    Autism is categorized as a system-wide neurological disorder. A "disorder" because the system of an autistic individual deviates from what is considered "normal". These are most likely inherited traits. To "cure" autism would pretty much be a system of eugenics. Once born with these traits, there is no cure. Just as there would be no cure for left-handedness or red hair. This is not an acquired disease, this is who these people are.

    Not being comfortable with looking at someone in the face is not the end of the world. I hope to teach my son coping mechanisms to live in a world that does not make sense to him, there is no need for him to pretend to not be autistic and fit in with the Neurotypical folk.

    As cool as it is that monkeys like porn as much as the average slashdotter, this research in my opinion is misguided.

    • The problem here is that your son is going to have to live and socialize with people who are not autists. While a "cure" might be impossible, it certainly is possible to come up with ways of making it easier for people with autism to interact with those around them.
    • I'd have to strongly disagree with you here, while i'm no expert myself I do associate with a group of Psychology Masters, two who actually specialise in autistic children. They are strong believers that their is infact a "cure", cured in the sense that when these children grow up, they are virtually indistinguishable from other people and no longer exhibit the traits that would classify them autistic and be able to function in society as normal people.

      The problems with socialising with people commonly ass
    • by Hacksaw (3678) on Saturday January 29 2005, @09:49AM (#11513213) Homepage Journal
      Lovely. Listen, is your boy high functioning, or low? Is he the next Temple Grandin, or is he one of the ones that rocks incessantly and can't dress himself at the age of ten?

      Just because you find your boy easy to deal with doesn't mean everyone else's kid is the same. Some autistics can survive in the world, many can't. For them amelioration of the effects means not having a "normal" life, but having a shot at any kind of independence.

      • by forkazoo (138186) <wrosecrans@noSPAm.gmail.com> on Saturday January 29 2005, @11:28AM (#11513657) Homepage
        I am not diagnosed autistic, but I have always had some behavioral quirks consistent with mild autism, or something similar, and frankly, I have always found the few truly autistic people I have met to be much easier to get along with than mundanes.

        So, obviously, there is a very broad range of what autism is from real, diagnosed mild autism, to not-quite-but-sort-of like myself, all the way to the profound autism where people are unable to function.

        There is no right answer to whether it should be cured. If somebody is completely unable to function, and to speak for himself, then his guardian should probably consider getting him available treatments. For me, personally, If somebody came to me with a pill that could make me function better in society, and understand people better, and be more normal, I wouldn't take it. I would fight kicking and screaming before anybody forced a normal-pill down my throat. I am curious about what normalcy would be like, but the fact that my brain doesn't work like anybody else that I know tends to be a valuable thing in many cases.

        For the middle ground, I think it has to be up to them. Research should continue. Treatments should be available. But, normalcy should not be mandatory.
    • Well you can get naked chicks on the internet for free. Why pay for another cable channel? ;)
    • by joke_dst (832055) on Saturday January 29 2005, @04:29AM (#11512359) Journal
      This is just homophobia driven to the extreme...

      Watching sports is not a sexual behaviour, but rather a herd behaviour. It strengthens the bond to the "herd", in this case the followers of the same team. It also appeals to the competitive side of humans, since sports (usually? always?) are a competition. It's hardly a display of gay sexuality.

      • by MrByte420 (554317) * on Saturday January 29 2005, @07:53AM (#11512747) Journal
        I'm a gay man who likes to watch sports and found the joke to be rather whimsical.

        Whats halrious is that Queen, headed by the flamboyantly gay Freddy Mercury, wrote lots of the songs that you hear at football games e.g. "We Will Rock You" and "We Are the Champions..."

        • by famebait (450028) on Saturday January 29 2005, @06:23AM (#11512554)
          There's a subtle sexualisation of contact

          The sexualisation happens in your head, dude. Physical contact is not inherently sexual, it's just christianity's fucked up relationship with sexuality that makes it so.

          In many cultures it is perfectly natural to take someone by the hand to show them the way somewhere, even if both parties are adult males. Most americans would consider it "gay". Now what sort of mental condition and view of sexuality does that require?

          Not that many other cultures don't have their own serious hangups, of course.

          • Well, it used to be christianity - now it's mostly various under-occupied university types who seek to sexualise pretty much everything.
          • by Skinny Rav (181822) on Saturday January 29 2005, @07:49AM (#11512743)
            Physical contact is not inherently sexual, it's just christianity's fucked up relationship with sexuality that makes it so.ty's fucked up relationship with sexuality that makes it so.


            I'd say that rather your view of Christianity is rather fucked up. Somehow in Eastern, Orthodox Europe it is OK for males to kiss for greeting in the lips, somehow in Poland, supposedly extreme-Catholic country, it is OK for males to walk and talk hugging each other. OK, maybe walking hand in hand would be considered gay, or rather "feminine", not even gay, but many other physical contacts between males are really OK, without any homesexual undertones.

            AFAIK it is the same (or even more) in Italy, Spain, Greece. I don't know...

            So, have you considered, that this fuck-up happened rather in Anglosaxon culture than in "christianity"? OK, it might be something protestant in the background, but I don't know enough about Protestants to draw any conclusions.

            And Christian (well, at least Catholic and Orthodox) view of sexuality, while it might seem restrictive from the outside, is coherent and based on viable basis. Of course, there are some devots who still think it is much worse to show a tit in TV than to show dead bodies of terrorist bombing victims, but I don't think it has much to do with Christianity either.

            So before you rant, please do some investigation in the subject.

            Raf
    • Nah, I lump rabid sports fans in the same catagory of Star Trek fans.

      Let's look at this.

      1. Both fans get dressed up as their favorite character/player.

      2. They both will buy lots of memorabilia.

      3. Both are always glued to the TV to watch their show/game.

      4. Both talk non-stop with other people about their show/game...even with people that couldn't give a shit.

      5. Both know minute trivia about their favorite show/game.

      But one is generally accepted and welcomed in pursuing their passion while the other is
    • A lot of guys already do this - they pay to see ESPN -it's considered dominant males by those who watch it.

      Personally, I think most sports fans are a little "gay". They'd rather watch a bunch of sweaty guys jumping all over eachother, than, say fashion TV - where hot models walk down the runway.


      Insightfull start but why did you flush it down the toilet with nimwit remark. It even counters your starts.
    • by johnlcallaway (165670) on Saturday January 29 2005, @05:05AM (#11512410)
      I must disagree. I have read several books that attempt to show coorelation between primate behavior and many human behaviors. These studies are important in the nature/nurture arguments and important in learning how to treat social and mental disorders.

      Besides, anything that strengthens the argument that watching p0rn is natural gets my vote for futher funding.
      • Besides, anything that strengthens the argument that watching p0rn is natural gets my vote for futher funding.

        Were these monkeys deprived of normal monkey contact, including the opportunity to see other (real) monkeys, possibly indulging in sexual activity?

        If so (and I suspect they weren't living in the jungle, so the answer is probably yes), then all this may prove is that watching pr0n (*) is natural IF YOU SHUT YOURSELF AWAY FROM CONTACT WITH OTHER HUMANS.

        And the monkeys didn't have a choice I'll