So, there's this question in cognition studies: how far down the evolutionary chain (forgive the inherent teleology here) does cognition go? Do dogs know they are alive? Probably. Fish? Maybe. Insects? Probably not.

Here's another question: how far doen the evolutionary chain does masturbation go? Dogs are well-known leg-humpers. But do cats masturbate? Reptiles? Fish? Is it restricted to mammals? Is there an evolutionary advantage to masturbation? Since masturbation definitely involves a sense of self, are the question of cognition and the question of masturbation linked? Could a case be made that masturbation is prima facie evidence of cognition? Super thorasis ejaculatori ergo sum (for males, at least)?

Yes, yes, I know, I probably should get out more. But now this is really bothering me.

I don't agree with the implication that cats are further down the evolutionary chain than dogs. Is there any evidence to suggest that, or was that sloppy writing?

I don't understand how an actual field of actual study can still be asking questions in terms of the "evolutionary chain". It's not just that that's teleological, it's that it's the wrong structure. It's not a chain, it's a tree. There really is no such thing as "higher"; that's not touchy-feely idealism, it's taxonomic fact. Your questions can't be answered in the terms in which you pose them. If "cognition studies" types really are posing them like that they all need a kick up the jacksie.

And I'm the man to do it, Sir.

Any animal that can lick its own bits, you can't tell me they're not doing that for fun sometimes.

Let's posit sloppy writing in the case of dogs and cats and reiterate that the term evolutionary chain is my own sloppy shorthand. And that Wyatt, in his guise as Idriss Alba, could kick the ass of anyone in cognition studies.

To rephrase: if you were to draw venn diagrams around the sets "creatures that are self-aware" and "creatures that masturbate", what's the overlap?

Posed like that, it's an interesting one. But it's not 100% obvious, philosophically, that apparently pleasure-seeking (or pain-avoiding) behaviour implies consciousness. Animals shrink from mild "pain" while sleeping, for example: that is, they shrink from stimuli that would be mildly painful if they were conscious--but they're not, they're asleep.

What Wyatt said. It's also far from obvious to me that masturbation does require a sense of self. Surely it just requires genital stimulation to be pleasurable.

And the anatomical means to do it, obviously.

Well, down to emprirical brass tacks, then. Which species masturbate?

Certainly primates and horses, though I haven't done any kind of study.

I was going to let you play with yourself on this one, but as others have joined in . . .

How on earth do horses wank?

Long swishy tails?

I was thinking the question might be better posed, can one be truly self-aware without masturbating.

I am told that horses wank by rolling themselves, and that stallions at stud are fitted with a type of cock ring that prevents them from, erm, achieving release in this fashion.

The stuff one learns when engaged in litigation over Arabian horses . . .

Rolling?

I'm trying to picture this. You mean like, back and forth from side to side, legs akimbo, torso in the dust?

I never had your degree of interest in the details.