Ken Comer (email@example.com)
5 Sep 1996 13:08:15 -0500
In article <3UmLyAwZqgnP091yn@io.com>, Lars Eighner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>alt.folklore.urban trimmed from follow-ups.
You're correct in asserting that the topic has strayed from AFU norms.
The original question was of interest to me, and I'll follow over to
sci.anthropology to hear the outcome.
>The lovely and talented email@example.com (Bryant) wrote:
>>In article <55cLyAwZqYIG091yn@io.com>, Lars Eighner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>The lovely and talented email@example.com (Bryant) wrote:
>>>>I wonder if there are any ecological parameters that correlate with the
>>>>practice, which might be compared to those encountered by the North
>>>>American Sioux, who also practiced female/female marriage.
>>>The question is: what accounts for the absence of female-female
>>>marriage in cultures where it is absent?
>>>This is what I mean by pointing out the bias inherent in your
>>>questions. Apparently your culture is the norm and it is
>>>up to those that differ to explain themselves.
>>Surely you're not arguing that female/female marriage is the
>>species-typical norm (?).
>Of course female-female is not the modal form of pair bonding in any
>human group I know of (but is in some species). But that it may be
>within the normal range of variation for human beings does seem to me
>entirely possible, and in the abscence of conclusive evidence
>one way or the other, the presumption of the contrary is at best
>premature and at worst prejudicial.
Your presumption that there is not conclusive evidence to the contrary
is at best ignorant and at most blindly obtuse. Unless, of course,
your mother was a parthenogenic Lebanese and in your culture Lars is a
name bestowed on women (or you have been transgendered).
>>you less revealed my "inherent bias" than your silly preoccupation. :)
>PS: Smilies are tabu in a.f.u. Please explain what ecological factors
>exist in sci.anthro that allow them.
Smileys are tabu on AFU, and we have made an effort to explain our
cultural basis for this. We seldom punish transgressors who stumble in
via cross-post. We are aware that these symbols have different meanings
in other parts of the 'net. We will tolerate cultural norms of
inferior newsgroups. We are snide and snobby, but we're not snide,
snobby and boorish.
the "can we start a thread on where single women outnumber single men
by a margin of ten to one again?" spiegel
 See "Re: maybe emoticons are necessary" at URL:
 See Usenet article:
Subject: Re: Floyd! Wolf! Here's the clues you ordered!
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Ken Comer)
 Note specific incidence of inherent bias
Ken Comer | http://www.metronet.com/~kcomer | aka spiegel