> But, I would not interpret it as evidence that Marxism is homophobic.
> For me the passage evokes the notion that might does not make right.
> In other words, while man might gain mastery over woman through the
> exercise of physical power and violence, and while he might gain a
> similar mastery over nature, a mastery so constructed does not
> constitute his humanity -- on the contrary.
> As a classical scholar and as a philosopher, Marx would be very
> familiar with the classical distinction between productive work and
> reproductive work (see Phaedrus), but here is his particular genius
> and gift: that he did not accept this distinction. So, I am arguing
> that his taking up the man/woman figure as significant does not denote
> his homophobia nor that of marxism in general, it denotes instead his
> interest in breaking up, in questioning this classic and false
> distinction.
I wasn't quoting it as evidence that Marx was homophobic. I interpret it as pointing to the implications of the idea of "species-being" and the idea of ideal relations this embodies for sexual relations and feelings. The claim, I take it, is that the best sex is sex within relations of "mutual recognition" i.e. relations between species-beings. Women and men are assumed to have the same capacity for species-being.
If anything, the implication is that exclusively heterosexual sexual desire would not be characteristic of a fully actualized species-being.
On the other hand, the implicit claim is that the feeling obtainable from satisfaction of a desire for violently transgressive sex, for sex with children, for consensual sex involving treating and being treated by others instrumentally, for sex in which one is idealized, etc., etc. wouldn't be as good as that obtainable from sex involving mutual recognition. The claim, in other words, is that there is an objective basis for preferring some kinds of sex to others.
Ted