竹内さんの本は、読んがことがあるつもりで、読んでいなかったのかも知れません。プロフィールにある本はどれも読んだことがありませんでした。
内容は「動物行動学」の専門家が、「同性愛の人が常に一定割合いるのはなぜか」に最近の「科学的」調査により迫ったものです。その事自体は面白いです。ただ、勘違いしてはいけないのは（この本を読む限り、著者は勘違いしているように見える）「人は子孫（遺伝子）を残すためにセックスしているのではない」ということです。「子供はセックスしたらできる」という知識が有って、それはセックスの誘導因になっているのかというと、むしろ「セックスをしない」要因になっているのではないでしょうか。精子は1667年にレーウィンフックによって発見されたと言われていますが、一般の人に知られるようになったのは19世紀ではないでしょうか。それまでは（今でも）「子供は授かりもの」なのです（不妊治療の是非、後述の「強制」参照）。「割礼」（クリトリスも陰茎も）が生殖と関連があるという研究も多いですが、それはセックスと生殖を切り離す努力であって生殖を推進するものではありません。個体の増加による社会の危機を回避するためというのも根拠がありません（「先進国」が「人口増加問題」を他人の責任として回避するのは再考されなければなりません）。あなたは「子供を作る」ためにセックスをしたことが何回ありますか。
単純です。人がセックスをするのは「気持ちがいい」からです。水を飲むのだって、食事を摂るのだって同じです。ところが、（少なくとも）人間は体でなく頭でセックスします（この本に書かれている「脳の反応」とは関係がありません）。社会的なのです（その点では遺伝子は親から子へ、本人から子供へ、という単線的なものではなくて、叔母、いとこなどを含めた社会的なものだという著者の考えには同調します）。
強制的に、あるいは仕事として「子供を作るために」セックスをするというはありますが、それは例外的な状況ではないでしょうか。例えば「大奥」とか、姑に（明に暗に）「早く子供を作れ」と言われるとか(^_^;)。（「女性は子供を（本能的に）欲しがる」という言説がまことしやかに流れています。それは「女性は・・・であるべき」という言葉と同じく「女性差別」の原因であり、結果です。）
それなら、水を飲むように、食事するように、気持ちよくなるためにどんどんセックスしよう？これは、男だから無責任に言えることです。当事者である女性にはセックスは大変なことです。特に避妊の技術や出産後の社会的サポートが殆どないに等しい現代社会においては（ピルはそれが身体に与える影響を別として、認められにくいのはなぜでしょう。あるいは堕胎に関しての宗教的、法的な「嫌悪感」とも言えるものはどこから来るのでしょう。）、女性にとって死活問題です。男性が気楽により気持ちの良いオナニー、オナニーの延長、オナニーの発展形としてセックスするのとは違うのです。言葉かけに対する男女の差は当然で、身体的なものとは関係ありません。
女性の性欲を否定する人は、今では少ないのではないでしょうか。それを否定するために男性は躍起になってきたという歴史観もあります。同時に男性は、女性にエッチさを求めています。それがなければ「強姦」になってしまいますから。女性が性欲をあらわにする事に対する嫌悪も根強いです（「ビッチ」という言葉とか、AV女優に対する感覚や、「アイドル」に求める感覚とか）。性欲の発現は社会的なものにほかなりません。
日本では、少子化が問題とされ「生産性」発言まで出ています。と同時に「人口爆発による食糧問題」が囁かれています。勝手ですね。詳しい話はまた別稿で。
「女性同性愛者は父方のテストステロンのレヴェルが高い家系において出現しやすいと言えるだろう」（P.218）、それまでの論調とは違い、根拠が全く書かれていません。
面白いと思います。自分の性的嗜好を科学的に説明しているとも思えます。うんちくをタレルのにも役立します。性的指向（嗜好）による差別をなくそうとする著者の気持ちに共感します。「オキシトシンは人と人との絆を深める」（P.134）。オキシトシンの話はとても面白かった。「女の特徴は子どもの特徴に通じている」（P.95）というのも興味を惹かれました。
彼女の本は必要性を感じない限り、もう読まないと思います。
⟨impressions⟩
The author's book may have been read and not read. I haven't read any of the books on her profile.
The content is a recent "scientific" study by an "ethology" expert on "why there is always a certain percentage of homosexuals". The thing itself is interesting. But don't get me wrong (as far as I read this book, the author seems to get it wrong), "people aren't having sex to leave offspring (genes)." There is knowledge that "children can do it if they have sex", and if it is a factor that induces sex, it may be a factor that "does not have sex". Sperm is said to have been discovered by Lewin Hook in 1667, but it was probably in the 19th century that it became known to the general public. Until then (even now), "children are gifts" (see "Forced" below for fertility treatment). Many studies have shown that "circumcision" (both clitoris and penis) is associated with reproduction, but it is an effort to separate sex from reproduction, not to promote reproduction. There is no basis for avoiding a social crisis due to population growth (it must be reconsidered that "developed countries" avoid the "population growth problem" as the responsibility of others). How many times have you had sex to "make a child"?
It's simple. People have sex because they feel good. Drinking water is the same as eating food. However, (at least) humans have sex with their heads rather than their bodies (which has nothing to do with the "brain response" described in this book). It's social (in that respect, it's in line with the author's idea that genes are social, including aunts, cousins, etc., rather than a single-track one from parent to child and from person to child. ).
It's possible to have sex "to have a child", either forcibly or as a job, but that's an exceptional situation. For example, "Ooku" or my mother-in-law (clearly and implicitly) tells me to "make a child quickly" (^ _ ^;). (The discourse that "women want children (instinctively)" is flowing in a straightforward manner, which is the cause of "discrimination against women" as well as the phrase "women should be ...". , The result.)
Then, like drinking water, eating, let's have sex more and more to feel good? This is irresponsible because he is a man. Sex is hard for the women involved. Especially in modern societies where there is little contraceptive technique or postnatal social support (why is the pill difficult to recognize, apart from its effects on the body, or religious and legal regarding abortion? Where does the typical "disgust" come from?), A vital issue for women. It's not like men have sex as a more comfortable masturbation, an extension of masturbation, or an evolution of masturbation. The difference between men and women in terms of wording is natural and has nothing to do with physical things.
I think there are few people who deny women's libido now. There is also a historical view that men have become enthusiastic to deny it. At the same time, men want women to be naughty. Without it, it would be "rape". There is also a deep-rooted aversion to women's sexual desire (such as the word "bitch", the feeling of an AV actress, and the feeling of seeking an "idol"). The expression of libido is nothing but social.
In Japan, the declining birthrate is a problem, and even "productivity" is mentioned. At the same time, "food problems due to population explosion" are whispered. It's selfish. The detailed story is in another article.
"It can be said that female homosexuals are more likely to appear in families with high levels of paternal testosterone" (P.218), and unlike previous tones, no evidence is written.
I think it's interesting. It seems to be a scientific explanation of one's sexual orientation. It is also useful for Turrell. I sympathize with the author's desire to eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation (preference). "Oxytocin deepens the bond between people" (P.134). The story of oxytocin was very interesting. I was also interested in the fact that "the characteristics of women are similar to those of children" (P.95).
I don't think I'll read her book anymore unless I feel the need.
The author's book may have been read and not read. I haven't read any of the books on her profile.
The content is a recent "scientific" study by an "ethology" expert on "why there is always a certain percentage of homosexuals". The thing itself is interesting. But don't get me wrong (as far as I read this book, the author seems to get it wrong), "people aren't having sex to leave offspring (genes)." There is knowledge that "children can do it if they have sex", and if it is a factor that induces sex, it may be a factor that "does not have sex". Sperm is said to have been discovered by Lewin Hook in 1667, but it was probably in the 19th century that it became known to the general public. Until then (even now), "children are gifts" (see "Forced" below for fertility treatment). Many studies have shown that "circumcision" (both clitoris and penis) is associated with reproduction, but it is an effort to separate sex from reproduction, not to promote reproduction. There is no basis for avoiding a social crisis due to population growth (it must be reconsidered that "developed countries" avoid the "population growth problem" as the responsibility of others). How many times have you had sex to "make a child"?
It's simple. People have sex because they feel good. Drinking water is the same as eating food. However, (at least) humans have sex with their heads rather than their bodies (which has nothing to do with the "brain response" described in this book). It's social (in that respect, it's in line with the author's idea that genes are social, including aunts, cousins, etc., rather than a single-track one from parent to child and from person to child. ).
It's possible to have sex "to have a child", either forcibly or as a job, but that's an exceptional situation. For example, "Ooku" or my mother-in-law (clearly and implicitly) tells me to "make a child quickly" (^ _ ^;). (The discourse that "women want children (instinctively)" is flowing in a straightforward manner, which is the cause of "discrimination against women" as well as the phrase "women should be ...". , The result.)
Then, like drinking water, eating, let's have sex more and more to feel good? This is irresponsible because he is a man. Sex is hard for the women involved. Especially in modern societies where there is little contraceptive technique or postnatal social support (why is the pill difficult to recognize, apart from its effects on the body, or religious and legal regarding abortion? Where does the typical "disgust" come from?), A vital issue for women. It's not like men have sex as a more comfortable masturbation, an extension of masturbation, or an evolution of masturbation. The difference between men and women in terms of wording is natural and has nothing to do with physical things.
I think there are few people who deny women's libido now. There is also a historical view that men have become enthusiastic to deny it. At the same time, men want women to be naughty. Without it, it would be "rape". There is also a deep-rooted aversion to women's sexual desire (such as the word "bitch", the feeling of an AV actress, and the feeling of seeking an "idol"). The expression of libido is nothing but social.
In Japan, the declining birthrate is a problem, and even "productivity" is mentioned. At the same time, "food problems due to population explosion" are whispered. It's selfish. The detailed story is in another article.
"It can be said that female homosexuals are more likely to appear in families with high levels of paternal testosterone" (P.218), and unlike previous tones, no evidence is written.
I think it's interesting. It seems to be a scientific explanation of one's sexual orientation. It is also useful for Turrell. I sympathize with the author's desire to eliminate discrimination based on sexual orientation (preference). "Oxytocin deepens the bond between people" (P.134). The story of oxytocin was very interesting. I was also interested in the fact that "the characteristics of women are similar to those of children" (P.95).
I don't think I'll read her book anymore unless I feel the need.
[出演者(プロフィール)]
竹内/久美子
エッセイスト、動物行動学研究家。1956年愛知県生まれ。京都大学理学部卒業後、同大学院に進み、博士課程を経て著述業に。著書に『そんなバカな!』(第8回講談社出版文化賞科学出版賞受賞)など
大ヒット映画でも話題騒然!
ロックスター、フレディ・マーキュリーとその恋人を襲った悲劇とは?
生物学最大のパラドックスともいわれる「同性愛」。
なぜ繁殖に不利な同性愛が一定の割合で存在してきたのか?
フレディのみならず、オスカー・ワイルド、三島由紀夫、ヴァージニア・ウルフ、
アラン・チューリングなどの天才たちの受難のドラマをはじめ、
遺伝子学、動物行動学などの最新の知見に基づいて、その謎に挑みます。
『同性愛の謎』の増補改訂版です。
ロックスター、フレディ・マーキュリーとその恋人を襲った悲劇とは?
生物学最大のパラドックスともいわれる「同性愛」。
なぜ繁殖に不利な同性愛が一定の割合で存在してきたのか?
フレディのみならず、オスカー・ワイルド、三島由紀夫、ヴァージニア・ウルフ、
アラン・チューリングなどの天才たちの受難のドラマをはじめ、
遺伝子学、動物行動学などの最新の知見に基づいて、その謎に挑みます。
『同性愛の謎』の増補改訂版です。
[拡大] [ ISBN-13 : 978-4166612093 ]
