P.S. Any Marxist who invokes commonsense as easily as it has been brought up in these discussions probably needs to go back and read their Gramsci.
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] hetersexuality?
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org, lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>
> Depends on what you mean by "biological basis". If by basis you mean
> something like explanation or theory, well then it is obviously there
> in evolution. Heterosexuality is part of the mechanism for
> reproduction.. Tahir
>
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> You end up with what I think are absurdities in socio-biology like
> looking for a queer gene.
>
> The path I would be interested in following tries to locate the brain
> control constellation that connects say various hormon systems and
> their production, and the general emotive affect.
>
>
> Tahir: Oh come now, don't be silly. I only said that there must be some
> basis for heterosexual behaviour otherwise evolution must have been
> impossible. Whatever it is, it must exist as a tendency for heterosexual
> behaviour; it doesn't even imply that heterosexual has to be the
> dominant tendency, although I suspect that that is the case. The very
> existence of male and female in more or less equal numbers suggests
> this. I have no doubt though that this tendency can be 'overdetermined'
> by environmental factors. What the underlying biological mechanisms are
> I have no idea, not knowing much about biology at all. But one does have
> to at least start from some sensible premise, that without
> heterosexuality no homo sapiens period. If you can do the research to
> shed more light on this all power to you. It'll be a damn side better
> than the pomo discourse on the subject.
> Tahir
>
> All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer
> http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk