“The conservator of the Rotterdam Natuurmuseum has won an Ig Nobel Prize for the world’s most useless research, awarded for his study into the alleged first case of homosexuality and necrophilia among wild ducks. Kees Moeliker’s article described a rare occurrence in which a wild duck was killed when it flew against the glass facade of the museum in 1995. The duck had been pursued by another male duck, which then raped the dead duck almost continuously for 75 minutes.” — Expatica News (Netherlands)

It doesn’t seem fair to call this useless research. Why is it any more useless to document deviance in ducks than it is to study reproductive habits in other animals? It’s that same old bias again — the one that says procreation is good and all sex that is non-procreative is bad. How do the judges of the Ig Nobel know that an analysis of deviant behavior in waterfowl might not lead to a better understanding of human perversity?

For example, whether homosexuality in humans might have a genetic cause is a subject of hot debate. Maybe studying ducks would help to find out — maybe homosexuals share a gay gene with their feathered friends. (If gay men have limp wrists, do gay ducks have limp wings?) Or maybe researchers might uncover a genetic mutation that can cause either man or mallard to hump the dead body of his desideratum. Who knows? Good research often consists of pursuing oddball questions to seemingly pointless conclusions. It may be precisely in the deviance of ducks that man discovers the rationale for his own sexual corruption.

VideoBox

It's like the iTunes Music Store for Porn. Download unlimited high-quality video for only $9.95/month.