Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> I don't mean to share inappropriately intimate info onlist, but
> I have a point: crude generalizations--"visual fantasies
> are important to men", "all men get off on lezzie sex"--aren't
> going to help us understand the astonishing diversity of
> human sexual activities and desires.
>
The theories continue to pour in, none of the theorists even nodding in the direction of Miles's argument.
And those theories increasingly remind me of what Stephen J. Gould and others in the field of evolutionary biology have labelled "Just So Stories." The beauty of Just So Stories is that as long as they have literary coherence, they cannot be challenged (except by another equally foolish Just-So Story) nor can they usefully explain anything. This incapacity is related to their internal coherence, which is achieved by creating a world inside the poem <g> which is hermetically sealed from contamination from the outer world. One can write critiques of them as poetry, but there is no way to discuss their propsitional adequacy.
Carrol
> Miles
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk