Contested dominance modifies the anovulatory consequences of social subordination in female marmosets

Dominance status among female marmosets is reflected in agonistic behavior and ovarian function. Socially dominant females receive submissive behavior from subordinates, while exhibiting normal ovulatory function. Subordinate females, however, receive agonistic behavior from dominants, while exhibiting reduced or absent ovulatory function. Such disparity in female fertility is not absolute, and groups with two breeding females have been described. The data reported here were obtained from 8 female-female pairs of captive female marmosets, each housed with a single unrelated male. Pairs were classified into two groups: “uncontested” dominance (UD) and “contested” dominance (CD), with 4 pairs each. Dominant females in UD pairs showed significantly higher frequencies (4.1) of agonism (piloerection, attack and chasing) than their subordinates (0.36), and agonistic behaviors were overall more frequently displayed by CD than by UD pairs. Subordinates in CD pairs exhibited more agonistic behavior (2.9) than subordinates in UD pairs (0.36), which displayed significantly more submissive (6.97) behaviors than their dominants (0.35). The data suggest that there is more than one kind of dominance relationship between female common marmosets. Assessment of progesterone levels showed that while subordinates in UD pairs appeared to be anovulatory, the degree of ovulatory disruption in subordinates of CD pairs was more varied and less complete. We suggest that such variation in female-female social dominance relationships and the associated variation in the degree and reliability of fertility suppression may explain variations of the reproductive condition of free-living groups of common marmosets

Da emergência da personagem social do homosexual à cultura gay: uma leitura a partir de Michel Foucault

This present research aims to understand the concept of homosexuality as a social creation that comes permeated by the discourses of sexuality devices. It discusses the issue of homosexuality with a focus on works of Michel Foucault, in special The History of Sexuality, where the author emphasizes that homosexuality as a social construct that manifests itself during the nineteenth century. From the Foucauldian discourse, it is proposed to understand and analyze the creation of the concept of homosexuality, which is built around the subordination of the individual as a social agent, or the creation of homosexuality does not refer to sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex, but a social subject and the position it takes in society. So along with the birth of the homosexual individual, there is also the construction of the individual as a social subject, as being, homosexuality and homosexual subject are products of overlapping powerculture. When addressing this theme, it breaks the hegemony that seeks to characterize naturalized of sexuality and, consequently, homosexuality, born with the original speeches on medical and psychiatric couches, in which one perceives the role of power in the discourses deploying the truths aimed at sexuality. With this, there has been an argument that seeks to refute the eugenics that includes sexuality as something natural, instituting a homosexual as a guy born hostage to a bad genetic and abnormal who should be treated for their disease, and understand this individual as a product of social discourse