On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Rob Schaap wrote:
> I should add, if it ain't clear enough, that the bits of Foucault with
> which I agree are argued by way of enlightenment logic. 'There is no
> natural sexuality' and 'why categorise sexualities' seem potent to me only
> from the point of view of big-T scientific truth. I do happen to hold that
You'll search in vain for the claim "there is no natural sexuality" in Foucault's work. To study how sexual activity is categorized/organized/ integrated in people's identities has nothing to do with vague, broad ontological statements about "natural sexuality". MF was a far more careful thinker than you seem to understand.
Miles