> This is anecdotal evidence. Actually it's well-established. The best-known example is ancient Greece. Here's a general roundup of some historical figures:

> This is anecdotal evidence. Actually it's well-established. The best-known example is ancient Greece. Here's a general roundup of some historical figures: Socrates, Alexander the Great, Lord Byron, Edward II, Hadrian, Julius Caesar, Michelangelo, Donatello and Christopher Marlowe. > Recall that is is a conversation about bisexuality and homosexual behavior, The conversation is about whatever people discuss. Funny to see you try a dodge when I completely skewer your "sperm is expensive" faux-pas! :) > I said 'interfacing,' which was meant as a euphemism for fucking. Yes, your example is incorrect, as societies in which men were not "highly focused on interfacing with females" still managed to keep the birth rate up. Cf. 300. > not homosexuality which is obviously not evolutionarily helpful to a homosexual man Sure it can be -- especially when it's the norm. It's not even disadvantageous to his genes as long as he's not exclusively homosexual. Even if he were, from his genes' perspective, he can still fulfill a useful role by protecting and benefitting his close kin, who have a lot in common genetically. Homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom. Numerous studies have discovered this surprising result. In humans it persists despite widespread modern cultural condemnation, so it's a bit of a sticky issue. It's not as simple as a blanket "selected for" or "selected against" situation. There's no such thing as universal fitness; just adaptations that are useful in a particular time and place.