User talk:Wlmg/Archives/2012/December

Improper synthesis in “Female promiscuity”

Hi. Last Friday you tagged a section of the female promiscuity article with an improper synthesis template. The trouble is that I'm unsure where the improper synthesis actually is. Now, if you could just make it clear, that would be quite helpful. EIN (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This would be an example: "One study in sexual antagonism suggested a possible genetic link between female androphilic promiscuity and male androphilia: Samoan tribal women exhibited a correlation between reproductive output and the likeliness of having androphilic grandsons, though not nephews (see also Fa'afafine).[7] .The potential implication is that androphilia is inheritable --Wlmg (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, the marked sentence can be removed altogether, but mind you that the abstract of the study itself says, “Male androphilia is an evolutionary paradox. Its development is at least partially influenced by genetic factors, yet male androphiles exhibit lower reproductive output, thus raising the question of how genetic factors underlying its development persist. The sexual antagonism hypothesis posits that the fitness costs associated with genetic factors underlying male androphilia are offset because these same factors lead to elevated reproduction on the part of the female relatives of androphilic males.” What do you think? EIN (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the whole study was done basically to test on a non-Western society if there is any empirical support of the hypothesis that androphilia, in one form or another, is inheritable to both males and females. You should take a glimpse. EIN (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)