(no subject)
Sep. 15th, 2018 11:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sciatrix"how has homosexual orientation evolved, given that, on average, homosexual individuals produce fewer children than do heterosexual individuals (this relative fitness relation between homosexuals and heterosexuals is considered an assumption for the purposes of this paper, given that the empirical evidence in the literature from Alfred Kinsey and others is weak)"
sir
do you hear yourself
do you hear yourself
I am not entirely sure if I can review this literature sober. The first thing I tackled was a piece purporting to be a review about proposed mechanisms for the evolution of female homosexuality; it spent three or four paragraphs explaining the possibility that bisexuality in women evolved for the purpose of attracting and interesting heterosexual men.
I cannot even.
sir
do you hear yourself
do you hear yourself
I am not entirely sure if I can review this literature sober. The first thing I tackled was a piece purporting to be a review about proposed mechanisms for the evolution of female homosexuality; it spent three or four paragraphs explaining the possibility that bisexuality in women evolved for the purpose of attracting and interesting heterosexual men.
I cannot even.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-22 05:19 pm (UTC)the point of this review was for a piece I'm working on with a few queer EEB twitter friends arguing that actually it's more parsimonious to assume that the costs to same-sex-directed sexual behavior are few and far between and "bisexuality" is a more likely null state for animal sexuality than strict heterosexuality please and thank you. So far we're getting a more than slightly enraging mixture of "not worth publishing, this is obvious" and "but that can't possibly be true!"
Nrghglh. This sort of thing is why I took one look at the field of human sexuality, did a sharp about-face, and marched quickly in the direction of animal evolution.