114 CHAPTER FOUR
habiting with one. Ophir et al. (2008) argue that both females and males
have sex with voles to whom they are not pair bonded, and males rear
offspring to whom they are not genetically related. Reporting on this study,
the news section of the journal Nature ran a headline worthy of any tabloid:
“ ‘Monogamous’ Voles in Love- Rat Shock.” The account reads: “By tradi-
tionalist standards, prairie- vole couples may enjoy the ideal relationship:
the rodents form lifelong partnerships — a highly unusual practice in mam-
mals. Males help raise the children; females help build the nest. As for their
sex life, let’s just say it far exceeds the efforts required for procreation. But
the respectable public behaviour of North American prairie voles (Microtus
ochrogaster) may hide a bed- hopping double life. Paternity tests published
last week indicate that the animals touted as paragons of monogamy fre-
quently cheat on their partners” (Ledford 2008, 617). This finding not only
damages the reputation of prairie voles as pillars of monogamy but also
complicates evolutionary theories that use them as a model to seamlessly
link sex, reproduction, and kin bonds.
There is also the related problem of the heteronormative gaze in animal
research. While same-^ sex behavior has been observed in many species and
well documented in about five hundred species (Bagemihl 1999), research-
ers have not seriously considered the implications of this for theorizing kin-
ship until recently (Bailey and Zuk 2009). Thus, various kinds of pairings,
even those that take place in the lab, can be misrecognized or ignored.^11
Bailey and Zuk note a general tendency in animal research to reassign “be-
haviors that would normally be expressed in the context of an opposite- sex
courtship or reproductive interaction, but are instead co- opted for another
function” (2009, 444). They argue that the prevalence and diversity of
same- sex interactions in animals calls for rethinking evolutionary theory.
Rather than explaining these separately from other sexual behaviors, they
call instead for treating them as “potential selective agents in and of them-
selves” (445). The sex practices, pair bonds, and paternal styles of prairie
voles and other nonhuman animals seem to have multiple and even cross-
purposes, rendering any singular, unifying evolutionary explanation for all
affective ties improbable.