Abstracts of essays; news; announcements; short takes.
While reading the article and upon some deliberation, there appeared to be a potential paradox in the figures of 2.7 vs 2.3. Upon further thinking though, I felt there was a logical reasoning to explain away the paradox. As I started writing it though, I realise my comments would be exceedingly long, so decided to put it in my blog. http://kuey.blogspot.com/2008/02/biological-advantage-of-gay-uncles.html
A couple comments:1. "androphilic men tend not to have sex with women" doesn't mean that they don't or that they don't sire children. I would postulate that the concept of individual freedom (i.e. self identifying as a gay man and deciding not to have sex with women) is very recent and that historically this concept didn't exist and "gay" men were expected to marry and sire children as a social convention.2. Regarding "the 20 years it takes to raise her kids", I'm not sure if this duration is supposed to apply to a single child or to the entire brood. In our complex society today it takes that long to raise a single child but I have to believe this too is a recent development and that historically the duration was much shorter.
along the same vein as larry's posting: the prevalence of homosexuality in classical greece, often cited as evidence of its cultural tradition, actually has weak applicability to current situation - Homosexuality was part of the macho conradeship among men, in particular military men, while heterosexuality was part of the family relationship, in particular the need to produce heirs. There is actually no issue of "preferring" one to the other, since they serve very different purposes.sgsociety.com
Post a Comment