baehraini: sighinastorm: wrenwind: prosthetical: Are u shitting me afkgjfndjdjsj How do you only inc
baehraini:sighinastorm:wrenwind:prosthetical:Are u shitting me afkgjfndjdjsjHow do you only include heterosexuals in a study about lesbians…??That’s the most salient question in the notes, so I choose you to reblog from. The answer is, the paper in question isn’t specifically on lesbians, but on female same-sex attraction. I know a lot of people are not going to see a big difference, but it’s there.but why use heterosexual women, as in women who don’t experience same sex attraction, to understand female same sex attraction?I’m not sure, and possibly this is addressed in the study. If you can get through the paywalls, please steal me a copy! But it seems to me that if the hypothesis is that same-sex attraction is a trait which somehow preserves itself through propagation, then regardless the reason for that, studying the group with the absolute least likelihood of progenation would be a non-starter. Because the process necessarily involves men and PIV sex at some point, and lesbians, as you know, aren’t much about that scene. If this study were to focus exclusively on lesbians, they would pretty much already know the results, so why even interview them? I’ve come up with my own way to introduce this paper.Do you find validity in the Selfish Gene hypothesis?Do you believe that the presence of arbitrary genetic material hints that, at least in some point in a species’ development, that material aided in species mating or survival?Is there a “gay gene” (or combination of genes + conditions)?Why?The paper’s name is “The Evolution of Female Same-Sex Attraction: The Male Choice Hypothesis”. It is the sister paper to one published last year called “The Evolution of Female Same-Sex Attractions [note the final S]: The Weak Selection Pressures Hypothesis”.There is another possible answer to your question. I may be making an unwarranted distillation here, but if Apostolou et al are on to something with this line of thought, then what seems to be said at is that female homosexuality exists because female bisexuality exists. This runs contrary to the way a lot of people think about it now, with bi women being regarded essentially as “junior lesbians”. And if that postulate is true, it could mean that male bisexuality and homosexuality, not conferring an equivalent survival advantage, are actually male nipples. That is to say, a reminder that all males are developmentally female at their earliest stages. That we have this anatomy and these behaviors, because we’re human, and there’s only so much room to code stuff on our one tiny chromosome.One ambitious headline-writer might even break it down as “gay men exist because of bi women”, altogether inverting the politics of the original post and similarly critical articles. -- source link