Chris Doss
I have never read Butler, but intuitively a specifically heterosexual urge is not needed for procreation; all you need is for the sexual "urge," if you want to call it that, to result in at least some amount of heterosexual sexual activity.
^^^ CB: I sort of agree with you. I hear ya. I have had this thought. But here's what I usually think next.
OK. We are talking about biology and a trait that was selected for way back when. So, take two individuals. Make them females so as to get rid of the confusion about the notion of heterosexual urge being some kind of male supremacist thingy. They are primates from a species ancestral to ours or even old mammals. One has a specifically heterosexual urge, built in biologically, in her genes. The other has a generalized sexual urge like you explain, also in her genes. She just wants to have sex , hetero, homo, or just with another creature or masturbate. Seems to me that the first female is much more likely to get pregnant. The other non-heterosexual activities would distract the one from the critical - from a selection standpoint - type of sex. There will be differential fertility between them, and the one with the specifically heterosexual urge will be selected for.
Differential fertility is the key thing in giving adaptive advantage. That's the finding of the latest evolutionary biological theory. A difference in fertility as would arise between the two hypothetical beings above would cause the female with the heterosexual urge to be selected for and the one with the generalized sexual urge to be selected against.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com