Animal sexual behaviour however, is proving to be false as, "most hormones don’t influence behaviour directly. Rather, they affect thinking and emotions in variable ways (Azar, 40)." There is much more involved in sexual behaviour in the mammalian animal than oxytocin and vasopressin can explain. It is often assumed that animals do not have sex for pleasure, or alternatively that humans, pigs, bonoboes (and perhaps dolphins and one or two more species of primates) are the only species that do. This is sometimes stated as "animals mate only for reproduction". This view is considered a misconception by some scholars. Jonathan Balcombe argues that
Political Animals and Animal Politics the inclusion of animals in political decision-making. Smith draws on Val Plumwood to argue that rather than solely think about resituating animals in ethical terms, what is needed is the resituation of humans in ecological terms; both are needed, she argues, as the two tasks are linked. Smith rejects the culture/nature dichotomy, and suggests that a politics of recognition is an appropriate way to think about relationships. She draws upon feminist and ecofeminist literature to conceive of recognition theory beyond intersubjective self/other relations, allowing recognition beyond the human self. Smith seeks to show that recognition theories should not be considered