Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!bu.edu!bu-bio!pamela
From: pamela@bu-bio.bu.edu (Pamela Hall)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Language (was Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?)
Message-ID: <68367@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 10 Nov 90 21:26:08 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <1990Oct25.140829.19268@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <58695@microsoft.UUCP> <1990Nov1.233150.31363@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Nov2.203149.16763@ariel.unm.edu> <67971@bu.edu.bu.edu> <1363@manta.NOSC.MIL> <68321@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: pamela@bu-bio.UUCP (Pamela Hall)
Organization: Biology Dept., Bost
Lines: 27


Look, I am not pushing a political agenda.  I apoligize for offending
you.  I am not particularly sensitive to word use.  I was genuinely
confused by the original posting.  Hey, call me dense.  I have been
trying to think of a similar example which would have no political
connotation.  How about this one:

In the course of conversation between two biologists, each kept
referring to some set of qualities of green/yellow-green light and
having disagreements about the effects of each.  The disagreement was
resolved when one said they were referring to 500nm the other 600nm.
With this additional clarification, the discussion continued and
refocussed upon the interesting aspects of biological response to these
two different wavelengths.

I know this is contrived, but does it make the motivation of my original
posting clearer?

Let's get back to the biology.

Are humans naturally monogamous?  Are there reasons to think that women
may have a greater proclivity for monogamy than men? or vice versa? How
do the various marriage laws or customs reflect (if at all) the natural
proclivities of humans and where conflicts between men and women might
arise?

Pamela Hall