Re: Parthenogenesis

From: David Weihe <weihe_at_gsidanet.danet.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 97 15:22:34 EST


> From: "Jane Williams" <janewill_at_mail.nildram.co.uk>
> But speaking of blokes, how about a bit of role-reversal here? We started
> off with a comparison with modern cloning techniques. Given that, we
> don't need women to produce babies, either. In fact, if you simply want
> genetic diversity, men are a better source (sperm count v. egg count).
> So, how about a society of *men* only? And some myths about how they get
> sons? Now there's a challenge!

No challenge. The men adopt children that they find just as they always do. In "marriages" the men just adopt the children presented to them by their wives, assuming that they aren't obviously another's get. Sometimes, even then, if they think that the child will turn out well (eg, it is some God's child, the original RW meaning of hero).

I expect that Humakti "adopt" male war orphans and comrade's sons to help keep up their numbers (although wouldn't dream of describing it thusly). They would be given duties as runners and drummerboys (or the local equiv) and then stealth training (since they are so small) (ala, Kim, from Kipling). Children raised in such society would look on more normal life as too dull for words and become Humakti initiates without passing through any of the more traditional cults (like Voriof, then Barntar), first.

I assume the equivalent for Babeestor Gor, as well. Neither would adopt infants, of course (that's what Chalana Arroya is for), but a big five year old could make a good mascot/waterboy, I expect. Definitely start them before their equivalents in the usual cults, though, so they think of themselves as more grown up than (thus superior to) the local children, and don't fall prey to the Fertility God/Goddess propaganda.

PS: Cloning still needs wombs, so we still need women until some feminist invents an artificial one.


Powered by hypermail