Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Bishop Brian Tamaki says members of other faiths should enter New Zealand on the basis they are entering a Christian country and have to conform to certain standards.
Oh, my aching Indignation Gland...
-
If its any consolation Emma, my opinion of David went up highly when I saw his Heinlein collection...
As long as we're talking The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and not Number of the Breast...
-
I think my head obscures a pile of Robert Heinlein novels (recommended by you, unless I'm mistaken).
Oh sure, trash MY credibility instead. Those were very specific Heinlein novels I recommended, not Heinlein in general.
It actually reminded me of my friend Susan's house. Though her husband does actually manage a second-hand bookshop (Arty Bees in Manners St).
</plug>
-
Clarkson apparently gets the chick vote, which is so not supposed to be his demographic. What I like about Top Gear is the presenters, whom I kind of view as playing the parts of Richard, James and Jeremy rather than as real people. They're a good team and entertaining to watch even if you don't like cars which I don't. It's kind of like the way I'm happy to read Fiona Rae or Diana Wichtel review television I'd never watch: because they're entertaining in themselves. I find Jeremy hysterical even when I violently disagree with him.
The other thing I appreciate is that they really love cars. As drivers, not mechanics, but they have a genuine love of driving and that really comes across.
Personally, I can't really abide Monster Garage or American Chopper, but I lurve Scrapheap Challenge(!)
I'm the same, and I also really love Mythbusters and Brainiacs. Maybe it's because they don't take themselves quite so bloody seriously?
-
The TV3 clip about bloggers and Fiji is here
I love how David's bookshelves make bloggers look so cerebral ...
D'you think they sat him in front of the Orwell on purpose? David?
-
affects research. There goes my English degree...
-
So there are maybe some differences in how men and women get their sexuality.
Thanks, Neil, that was interesting, and would tend to suggest that differences in gender brain chemistry would outweigh differences in sexual orientation.
It is, however, yet another study that ignores the existence of bisexual people. I mean, when they say:
But since gay men have about one-fifth as many children as straight men, any gene favoring homosexuality should quickly disappear from the population.
It suggests to me that one of the reasons it doesn't disappear is that bisexual men act as 'carriers'. (Also the mechanism they're describing wouldn't eliminate it, just keep it rare.)
Still, it's nice to know my reaction to Angelina Jolie and Toni Marsh is 'relatively indiscriminate.
Michael - I also went to Canterbury. I know what my particular department was like, fifteen years ago. And I didn't try to get funding for research, so despite going there, I have absolutely NO idea what its 'philosophy' is now, or how that effects research. Oh, if only there was someone around who was actively doing research at Canterbury now, who might have an informed opinion...
-
I'm making the assumption that for heterosexuals sexuality is more significantly related to the X and Y chromsomes. XX = have sex with men, XY = have sex with women. Whereas with homosexuality there seems to be a larger set of possible causes. (I've just debated this, rather hotly, with my partner so maybe i'm overlooking something).
Okay, I'd disagree with that, but I think we can do that civilly. I see sexuality as one thing, one trait. Like height, even though you still have 'short' and 'tall' (and of course 'middling'). The trouble I find with the idea that hetero and homo are completely different things is that it CAN lead to some pretty distasteful arguments. Like, being straight is something you are, but being gay is something you do, ergo you can just stop.
[REPLY: Emma, I've forwarded your question to Prof Fletcher. If/when I get a response I'll post it on this thread -- DH]
Cheer, David, I appreciate the effort.
-
Heterosexuality has, presumably, one main genetic cause, whereas homosexuality is most likely the result of a greater number of causes
I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by that, Neil. Sexuality is a continuum, not a binary state. No matter what end of the continuum you're on, the genetic cause is the same. It's like saying genes or womb environment have more influence over having red hair than brown.
But. I'd happily argue that social influences are much more complicated and influential when choosing a same-sex partner. I can argue this from personal experience (we bis have such a fabulous perspective on these things don't you know), but I'm aware how dangerous it is to base broad conclusions on a single example.
-
At the risk of getting the thread back on topic (or being an anthro-bore, which has been known to happen) I found this really interesting. I just have one, quite big, question.
The biological basis for couple attraction in heterosexual couples all looks very sound from an evolutionary viewpoint. But what happens in same-sex couples? Has Prof. Fletcher had homosexual couples in the study, and what happens? If you have two females in a couple, do they both look for what women look for in a partner, both look for what people look for in a female partner, or do you have one from each perspective?
[**REPLY**: Emma, I've forwarded your question to Prof Fletcher. If/when I get a response I'll post it on this thread -- DH]