Humans have ability to suppress or transcend their instincts because we have culture ( anthropologically defined) . However, this does _not_ mean there is no instinct in the first place. Nothing in our evolutionary history would have selected against it (!)
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 13, 2016, at 2:48 PM, magcomm <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All:
>
>> . . . for the secret of this approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain and undisguised expression in the relation of man to woman and in the manner in which the direct and natural species-relationship is conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary relation of person to person is the relation of man to woman.
>
> Philosophy, poetry and (you forgot to add Charles) transphobic nonsense (except to the new breed of toilet monitors who are emerging below the Mason-Dixon line).
>
>> . . . humanity is essentially non-essential."
>
> Buddhist thinkers arrived at the same conclusion a few hundred years prior. Correct then; correct now.
>
>> So, Foucault took license to erase the scientific fact of heterosexual instinct from anthropology and the philosophy of human nature. Foul deed ! Anti-Marxist big lie !
>
> This article from the Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association explains about the lack of sexual instinct. The author does note that "the instinct requiring the largest compensating intelligence level before it can be lost is the sexual instinct." I hope other list members will join me in wishing Charles swift attainment of just such a compensating intelligence level.
>
> http://www.humansexualevolution.com/index.htm
>
> Brian
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk