Lars Eighner (email@example.com)
8 Sep 1996 19:04:45 -0500
In our last episode <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Broadcast on sci.anthropology
The lovely and talented email@example.com (Ken Comer) wrote:
>In article <3UmLyAwZqgnP091yn@io.com>, Lars Eighner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>alt.folklore.urban trimmed from follow-ups.
>>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).
This is utter nonsense of course. To the best of my knowlege
human parthenogenisis does not exist. So what?
There is no evidence whatever that female-female marriage is outside
the normal range of variation in human cultures. There certainly is
no conclusive evidence to that effect. While the ethnographic record
in its present state reveals only a small percentage of cultures
with female-female marriage, it is very evident that the record is
systematically biased. This can be seen in the contrary reports about
cultures in which female-female marriage is known to occur and
in the admission of suppression by some investigators. Moreover,
the distribution of cultures known to have practiced female-female
marriage is fairly widespread on a least two continents.
=Lars Eighner=4103 Ave D (512)459-6693==_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
= email@example.com =Austin TX 78751-4617_/ alt.books.lars-eighner _/
= http://www.io.com/~eighner/ _/ now at better ISPs everywhere _/
="Yes, Lizbeth is fine."==========_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/