> (this last theory of
>the existence - rise? -of homosexuality in the article would be funny
>if it were not so obviously wrong, an echo (mirror) of those who want
>to 'return to the past' where there were no poofters.) mode of
>production explanations i would like to see, but this does not work in
>the slightest; and nor does affirming urbanisation for making it
>possible to do the dirty with those of the same sex work enough for me
>as an explanation to now turn to celebrating technology as liberatory,
>as 'living marxism' would bid us do.
I'm surprised that Angela objects to this, fairly routine argument that urbanisation creates a cosmopolitanism in which sexuality can develop apart from family ties. See for example John D'Emilio's essay Capitalism and Gay Identity. -- Jim heartfield