(no subject)

Be careful going under the Elizabeth Way roundabout underpass. It's better lit, but there's a couple of giant burrowing carnivorous worms lurking in the middle, only their luminous horns poking from the ground. They wait submerged, listening to the footsteps and heartbeats of any animal passing near, and if any victim comes close enough, pounce[1], one massive bite engulfing ground and victim at once.

[1] OK, I don't know that bit for certain. I didn't try walking through them. For all I know they're pacifist giant carnivorous worms. Or not animals at all, but some sort of luminous territorial structures erected by a communal hive species to repel outcast members. Feel free to doubt.

(no subject)

Apparently, Desmond Morris proposes that men are gay when they fail to leave the "boys together" phase of development.

The articles read like odes to the "make plausible declarative statements telling stories about what might happen in [field of "soft" science] and pretend the fact that the conclusions accord with reality is evidence for the stories".

The comments are full of people objecting that what he says in no way accords with their experience.

My main reactions were to the first sentence, pointing out that by the theory of natural selection, heterosexual males are favoured by evolution. That this is so, I think *is* clear. And you can [edit:] tell this is the *only* case from evidence such as the extinction of honey bees (where all but one female bees in a hive are non-sexual) and the breeding out of sickle-cell anaemia (being a single-gene controlled contra-survival trait) in all of the human population.

And to the title. I don't know if male and female homosexuality are related or not. But an explanation that claims to explain one of them smacks of suspiciciosity to me.

I'm afraid I couldn't read further. Does anyone actually know any details? Presumably his book actually says something, you can't dismiss a theory based on its title, even if that would be fun :)