>>>> <lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org> 06/12/08 7:14 PM >>>
> From: "shag" <shag at cleandraws.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] heterosexuality?
>>>I meant men and women fucking each other and liking it. What did
>>>Gramsci have to say about it? Did he have a different notion to
> this?
>>>Tahir
>>
>> And if they don't like it? Reproduction doesn't depend on that does
> it?
>
> i wondered about that myself. i'd say that fucking on occasion, once a
> year or so given gestation, is all that's required. liking it or any
> attitude about it whatsoever seems unnecessary to reproduction of the
> species.
>
> This kind of 'planned parenthood' wouldn't work for evolution of the
> species although it might work for propogation of the species, two
> different things. It wouldn't work for evolution, because hominids, or
> any other earlier species, would obviously not have a sense of 'wanting'
> to evolve into homo sapiens (talk about teleology!).
this isn't anything i said, so who are you talking to? a turd in your pocket?
So what reason would they have then for doing something they didn't like?
*suck* *slurp* *knead* *suck* *suck* *knead* *knead* *suck*
They
> certainly wouldn't have had any religious injunction to go forth and
> multiply at that pre-human stage. Also, at that lower stage of evolution
> it is highly unlikely that sex was linked cognitively to reproduction.
> It has even been suggested that for a large part of the era of homo
> sapiens that that link was not grasped.
*rolls eyes*
>
> As far as propogation of the species is concerned, like now, you could
> argue that the occasional fuck out of a sense of duty (or the desire to
> have children) would do it. Provided that you used viagra or something
> similar you could perform this act grudgingly I suppose.
*thinking of England*
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)