[MBTI General] What if we've been looking at 'man' and 'woman' wrong?

[EcK]

Well if you look at a man wrong, he might hit you.
If you look at a woman wrong, she might get another man to hit you.

That about sums it up.

 

[EcK]

God wouldn’t be much of a god if he didn’t have a higher perspective then typology.

Mentioning your imaginary friend's assumed perspective is not an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

nah we're all exactly alike.

this

 

[Betty Blue]

I'm excited for the day when we all have the capabilities of bearing children. I think it's one of the next evolutionary step, we seem to be catching up to this psychologically much faster than biologically.

Some animal species have developed it already, though in pretty simple terms. The banana slug has even be known to impregnante itself. As for the bigger god picture well, idk that's a rather larger topic.

Are we all part of some pre thought out plan? Is it going as it should?

 

[Lark]

Left Hand of Darkness involves a society in which people are androgynous. They pair up for life, and take on complementary sexes when it is time to reproduce. Who is who is random and not constant, so the mother of one child might be the father of another.

Yeah, that's one of the ones I was thinking of, there was a Star Trek Next Generation which dealt with a similar society.

I do hope here you are not equating either sex with having a disability. It is more like handedness, awkward mostly in a society set up for the opposite hand preference.

No, why would I be doing that, I was equating disability with difference, including sexual differences. Its part of the reason why womens rights are usually conflated with minority rights or status despite not being the smaller in number.

Well, barring anarchy, there needs to be some sort of government or leadership. There is no biological basis for associating those roles with men. There may be some small basis for linking style of leadership with sex but even that is tenuous at best given the spectrum of individual differences among each sex, and the strong influence of other factors.

Its an interesting talking point, pragmatism prevents me from supporting the more hard line anarchist positions, pretty much, although how they define their terms and understand them I can understand why they would consider those positions of power as anathema to femininity, as they understand it.

 

[Lark]

I'm excited for the day when we all have the capabilities of bearing children. I think it's one of the next evolutionary step, we seem to be catching up to this psychologically much faster than biologically.

Some animal species have developed it already, though in pretty simple terms. The banana slug has even be known to impregnante itself. As for the bigger god picture well, idk that's a rather larger topic.

Are we all part of some pre thought out plan? Is it going as it should?

I'm just saying, this sounds totally horrible to me. Psychologically or biologically I associate that kind of pursuit of androgyny with all sorts of toxic egalitarianism (which I actually think is a betrayal of equality) or uniformity. This kind of thinking is horrible in the way that I think the UK sci fi TV series which was to do with time travel through "anomalies" discovery that strange dino like monsters were not coming from the past but were "future predators" from a post-human future.

There's been a lot of treating humanity or human nature as despicable in fiction, its trending kind of, from stuff like the Twilight series right through (I always thought the love narrative was a ruse, that female was able to give up her humanity in a heart beat). I think humanity and human nature is pretty good, I know that some people find that objectionable, particularly if they think that what counts as nature for the majority or for the majority of history contributes to social exclusion. Its a bizarre sort of self-sabotaging perfectionism or so it strikes me as being.

Likewise the whole rejection of the idea of binary sexes or biology being destiny, it all seems driven by a lot of the manic thinking that underpins modern consumerism, any restriction of supposed choice is seen as a positive injustice and oppression, which it isnt, most of the time I find most of the thinking to be an active diversion from actual injustice and oppression, such as avoidable suffering, artificial scarcity etc. Though, those are just my views, take them or leave them, its not going to make a great deal of difference.

If you want to talk about likely scenarios for some sort of change in the human sexes and reproduction I think it'd be much more likely that a privileged minority will appropriate the right to reproduce to itself and exclude everyone else, male or female, from reproduction. Its the malthusian logic of Thanos and it'll just trend a pace as AI and automation and jobless growth continue a pace.

 

[Coriolis]

No, why would I be doing that, I was equating disability with difference, including sexual differences. Its part of the reason why womens rights are usually conflated with minority rights or status despite not being the smaller in number.

Disability is just one category of difference and is unlike most others in manifesting as physical limitations on what someone can do. Expanding opportunity for the disabled generally involves taking some positive action: changing how buildings are constructed, providing sign language interpreters or audible cues, etc. Expanding opportunity for other segments of the population like women, gays, racial or ethnic groups, in contrast requires removing prohibitions, as the limitations are mainly artificial and externally imposed. It is in this sense that women are affected similarly to the other groups, despite not being a minority in the population.

Its an interesting talking point, pragmatism prevents me from supporting the more hard line anarchist positions, pretty much, although how they define their terms and understand them I can understand why they would consider those positions of power as anathema to femininity, as they understand it.

That implies a definition of femininity that is as narrow and tied to biology as the one used to limit women for generations. Real women demonstrate a far greater range of attributes and abilities than these stereotypes and narrow social roles allow.

 

[Lark]

Disability is just one category of difference and is unlike most others in manifesting as physical limitations on what someone can do. Expanding opportunity for the disabled generally involves taking some positive action: changing how buildings are constructed, providing sign language interpreters or audible cues, etc. Expanding opportunity for other segments of the population like women, gays, racial or ethnic groups, in contrast requires removing prohibitions, as the limitations are mainly artificial and externally imposed. It is in this sense that women are affected similarly to the other groups, despite not being a minority in the population.

I'd guess I have differences with you here.

That implies a definition of femininity that is as narrow and tied to biology as the one used to limit women for generations. Real women demonstrate a far greater range of attributes and abilities than these stereotypes and narrow social roles allow.

Well, that is one way of considering it, I did say in the first post how I thought the idea that positions of power being anathema to femininity could result in a reinforcing of oppression by simply excluding women from high office, however, I would not say that its a stereotype. Its more along the lines of regular anarchism, being closely wedded to the all or nothing idea involves foregoing any good that might come from piece meal reform, you know? There is no stereotype involved there, just consistency with first principles.

 

[Betty Blue]

I'm just saying, this sounds totally horrible to me. Psychologically or biologically I associate that kind of pursuit of androgyny with all sorts of toxic egalitarianism (which I actually think is a betrayal of equality) or uniformity. This kind of thinking is horrible in the way that I think the UK sci fi TV series which was to do with time travel through "anomalies" discovery that strange dino like monsters were not coming from the past but were "future predators" from a post-human future.

There's been a lot of treating humanity or human nature as despicable in fiction, its trending kind of, from stuff like the Twilight series right through (I always thought the love narrative was a ruse, that female was able to give up her humanity in a heart beat). I think humanity and human nature is pretty good, I know that some people find that objectionable, particularly if they think that what counts as nature for the majority or for the majority of history contributes to social exclusion. Its a bizarre sort of self-sabotaging perfectionism or so it strikes me as being.

Likewise the whole rejection of the idea of binary sexes or biology being destiny, it all seems driven by a lot of the manic thinking that underpins modern consumerism, any restriction of supposed choice is seen as a positive injustice and oppression, which it isnt, most of the time I find most of the thinking to be an active diversion from actual injustice and oppression, such as avoidable suffering, artificial scarcity etc. Though, those are just my views, take them or leave them, its not going to make a great deal of difference.

If you want to talk about likely scenarios for some sort of change in the human sexes and reproduction I think it'd be much more likely that a privileged minority will appropriate the right to reproduce to itself and exclude everyone else, male or female, from reproduction. Its the malthusian logic of Thanos and it'll just trend a pace as AI and automation and jobless growth continue a pace.

I don't see how it's toxic, removing the two type biological gender inequality would be fantastic on so many levels. I'm sure you'd have a lot of hostility at first. Much like when women wanted the vote, men were jailed for being gay (in the western world) and now we currently have hideous amounts of hatred towards transgendered people. Tradition versus progression. People are resistant to change but change is not always bad, certainly not in this case.

I'm struggling with this, i'd like to be able to communicate to you in a way in which you could understand but I feel like you are blindsided by your desperation to hold on to your discrimination.

 

[Sacrophagus]

I'm excited for the day when we all have the capabilities of bearing children. I think it's one of the next evolutionary step, we seem to be catching up to this psychologically much faster than biologically.

Some animal species have developed it already, though in pretty simple terms. The banana slug has even be known to impregnante itself. As for the bigger god picture well, idk that's a rather larger topic.

Are we all part of some pre thought out plan? Is it going as it should?

Frankly, you know that most of us heterosexual men have to put our penises somewhere to feed our phallic disposition. Nature as it is, and we're responding to our current programming.

Nonetheless, the farthest future where humanity needs to somehow survive by eliminating both genders for a hermaphrodite species is something that might actually exist in some possible detrimental context where that evolutionary process takes place. Maybe farfetched if we choose to be short-sighted, but it remains a possibility. I cannot speak for its predetermination, but no one can deny that outlandish plans deemed they were in the past, but now are the standard and the norm.

The only question I might ask is "If there is one parent to an offspring, what about the diversity of genomes? Wouldn't that make its hereditary charateristics stagnant since it is pure proliferation of the previous generation?"
They might find a solution for that. Bioengineering.

Morally, I actually wouldn't judge or have anything against that phenomenon if it existed right now. I remain loyal to myself, and as it is, I will choose a heterosexual woman with whom I share the same values and vision, and make a den for our little family. Other people's business is not our business, and that's all.

In the meanwhile, the idea of ploughing myself wouldn't be something I would think of.

 

[Lark]

I don't see how it's toxic, removing the two type biological gender inequality would be fantastic on so many levels. I'm sure you'd have a lot of hostility at first. Much like when women wanted the vote, men were jailed for being gay (in the western world) and now we currently have hideous amounts of hatred towards transgendered people. Tradition versus progression. People are resistant to change but change is not always bad, certainly not in this case.

I'm struggling with this, i'd like to be able to communicate to you in a way in which you could understand but I feel like you are blindsided by your desperation to hold on to your discrimination.

I just see this as being an avoidance of the issue, a pretty sophisticated one actually but an avoidance all the same, there's inequality between men and women? Well, obviously the answer is there shouldnt be any more men or women anymore!! What? Its a bit like suggesting that because cars are a popular means of transport and there are car deaths then everyone should revert to riding bicycles instead, really?

Instead, I'd propose, that we remain men and women, distinct, different, very different biological destinies, but instead of seeing to erase that difference we recognise it and celebrate it. Equality does not involve sameness. Equality is not uniformity. That is fascism or communism or something like that. Its not equality. Equality might involve treating people very differently, the point is that they are being treated fairly and impartially.

For instance, some people require spectacles to see, others require assists to mobility, ie crutches, walking sticks, a cool cane, wheelchairs or scooters, because those people need those assists does not mean that everyone ought to have those things or that a standardized, uniform issuing of the same ought to happen.

I'm really glad that you're struggling with this, struggling is good, particularly when you find out that your assumptions about the person you are seeking to communicate with are in error, as I would hope you have realised about your post about me. There's no desperation and there is no UNFAIR discrimination. Not for a moment. Although I do hate a lot of the distorted and atrophied versions of political correct thinking I encounter online, I do care about equality and a better world for everyone and what I encounter with things like desperate androgyny is really not it.

I can sense that you want a better world, that's really commendable, the particular prescriptions you've decided need a serious critical evaluation though. You're not going to take my word for it but just keep thinking on it and questioning the authorities you've accepted, those traditions, maybe you'll have doubts about it.

 

[Lark]

Frankly, you know that most of us heterosexual men have to put our penises somewhere to feed our phallic disposition. Nature as it is, and we're responding to our current programming.

Nonetheless, the farthest future where humanity needs to somehow survive by eliminating both genders for a hermaphrodite species is something that might actually exist in some possible detrimental context where that evolutionary process takes place. Maybe farfetched if we choose to be short-sighted, but it remains a possibility. I cannot speak for its predetermination, but no one can deny that outlandish plans deemed they were in the past, but now are the standard and the norm.

The only question I might ask is "If there is one parent to an offspring, what about the diversity of genomes? Wouldn't that make its hereditary charateristics stagnant since it is pure proliferation of the previous generation?"
They might find a solution for that. Bioengineering.

Morally, I actually wouldn't judge or have anything against that phenomenon if it existed right now. I remain loyal to myself, and as it is, I will choose a heterosexual woman with whom I share the same values and vision, and make a den for our little family. Other people's business is not our business, and that's all.

In the meanwhile, the idea of ploughing myself wouldn't be something I would think of.

The self-governing vision of let people live and let live, we'll see what turns out to be the case has something to be said for it.

Its one I certainly believe in myself, I believe in the private life and if all but one were wrong about something that one should be able to carry on a life professing whatever beliefs they privately hold, behaving as they privately choose to, provided that they are not harming others. The problem these days is that there are a lot of people who do not hold with this sort of view of free thinking and believe that if you privately hold divergent opinions its a problem which needs to be addressed. There are interfaces and overlaps between the private and the public which I do believe are problematic and become battle grounds, unfortunately, although if all sides would take self-government more seriously it would certainly help.

Although, one caveat I would add to this, I honestly do not believe in the infinite adaptability of humankind. I do agree with Hannah Arendt, for instance, who suggested that totalitarianism's special feature was believing that "anything is possible", ie humankind is infinitely adaptable. It can seem so for a while, consciously people can strive very hard to conform and adapt but eventually all the mental, emotional conflict, the unconscious needs asserting themselves against fashionable norms, then a breakdown occurs or personality disorders.

Erich Fromm has written at length about this with respect to industrialism, capitalism, other aspects of the present mode of being. Human beings have an essence, if their existence diverges too far from that essence I'm sure problems occur. I'm not even sure the denial of an essence or nature, the denaturing of human beings, the attacks on all that are not part of the problem. A lot of its political I think and people reacting against what they, well, believe they are against, as opposed to having any real positive vision that makes sense. Like I think its foolish to believe that mankind should have no past and only a future, just as foolish as it is to suppose that mankind has no future but one hell of a past (that ought to account for traditionalists and innovators).

So, while I'm not averse to people doing whatever the hell they like, especially if they're keeping to themselves, or especially if it involves only their damned self, I still think it will result in avoidable suffering. I think there's an ethical obligation on everyone's part of question avoidable suffering. I dont believe it will ever prove beneficial to an individual or society to indulge that particular idea (just to be clear I dont believe that effort is the same thing as avoidable suffering, there's a lot of confused talk about discomfort being good for people, no pain, no gain, all that verbiage I think is reflective of the problem, part of the problem, it doesnt mean the same thing).

Its one thing to charting a particular course yourself but when you seek to popularise it with everyone else and make it fashionable there can be problems with that, its piped piper of hamlin stuff, its the anti-vax stuff, if the externalities could be restricted in some ways, most ways, I'd be fine with it but you get the idea. Your neighbours house is on fire its likely to spread to yours, so when your neighbour decides to light their house on fire you have to take notice.

What I like about sci fi is the frontier though, staying with the neighbourhood analogy you can move to a new neighbourhood. If modern liberals ever succeed in convincing everyone that heterosexuality, different sexes etc. are atavistic or anachronistic then there'll be a planet some place that doesnt see it that way and I'm sure that colony can carry on humanity even if others dont

 

[Betty Blue]

I just see this as being an avoidance of the issue, a pretty sophisticated one actually but an avoidance all the same, there's inequality between men and women? Well, obviously the answer is there shouldnt be any more men or women anymore!! What? Its a bit like suggesting that because cars are a popular means of transport and there are car deaths then everyone should revert to riding bicycles instead, really?

Instead, I'd propose, that we remain men and women, distinct, different, very different biological destinies, but instead of seeing to erase that difference we recognise it and celebrate it. Equality does not involve sameness. Equality is not uniformity. That is fascism or communism or something like that. Its not equality. Equality might involve treating people very differently, the point is that they are being treated fairly and impartially.

For instance, some people require spectacles to see, others require assists to mobility, ie crutches, walking sticks, a cool cane, wheelchairs or scooters, because those people need those assists does not mean that everyone ought to have those things or that a standardized, uniform issuing of the same ought to happen.

I'm really glad that you're struggling with this, struggling is good, particularly when you find out that your assumptions about the person you are seeking to communicate with are in error, as I would hope you have realised about your post about me. There's no desperation and there is no UNFAIR discrimination. Not for a moment. Although I do hate a lot of the distorted and atrophied versions of political correct thinking I encounter online, I do care about equality and a better world for everyone and what I encounter with things like desperate androgyny is really not it.

I can sense that you want a better world, that's really commendable, the particular prescriptions you've decided need a serious critical evaluation though. You're not going to take my word for it but just keep thinking on it and questioning the authorities you've accepted, those traditions, maybe you'll have doubts about it.

Thats interesting because you read something else into what i intended. The idea is not that we have NO more women and men but that we merger the two giving each more capabilities than previously. Rather than rid ourselves of either sex we enhance both. I'm not how relevant 'physical' disabilities are in comparatives, though of course as a society there is much to be done in awareness and understanding (it might not be such a bad idea to experience a thing temporarily to gain a better understanding). We have already come a long way with this. In the 1960's those with mental health issues or learning disabilities used to go away to asylums and rarely come back.

I think at the moment we are in a huge resistance stage with transgenderism and gender in general. But there is hope and there is definately progress. Because people stand up for their rights in the face of adversity and make themselves heard, with that comes shock and opposition but a movement in born. This is why I like the Rosa parks analogy. Rosa parks was not the first black woman to refuse to give up her seat, the wheels has already started to roll but it accelerated it because with each woman a little more understanding, a little more empathy and a little more awareness spread.

These things will happen, they have already begun, in the grand scheme of things there is little you or I could do to influence events. I am just glad to bear witness to such exciting times.

 

[Lark]

Thats interesting because you read something else into what i intended. The idea is not that we have NO more women and men but that we merger the two giving each more capabilities than previously. Rather than rid ourselves of either sex we enhance both. I'm not how relevant 'physical' disabilities are in comparatives, though of course as a society there is much to be done in awareness and understanding (it might not be such a bad idea to experience a thing temporarily to gain a better understanding). We have already come a long way with this. In the 1960's those with mental health issues or learning disabilities used to go away to asylums and rarely come back.

I think at the moment we are in a huge resistance stage with transgenderism and gender in general. But there is hope and there is definately progress. Because people stand up for their rights in the face of adversity and make themselves heard, with that comes shock and opposition but a movement in born. This is why I like the Rosa parks analogy. Rosa parks was not the first black woman to refuse to give up her seat, the wheels has already started to roll but it accelerated it because with each woman a little more understanding, a little more empathy and a little more awareness spread.

These things will happen, they have already begun, in the grand scheme of things there is little you or I could do to influence events. I am just glad to bear witness to such exciting times.

I'm not sure that being one sex or the other and being unable to reproduct hermaphrodite style is an injustice actually. Definitely not like Rosa Parks and racism, its interesting you do though. Do you think that Rosa would have seen it that way?

I'm not as excited about the things that are trending which you mention, it all seems very Frankenstein and mad science like to me. Interesting reading your thoughts on the matter though.

 

[Betty Blue]

I'm not sure that being one sex or the other and being unable to reproduct hermaphrodite style is an injustice actually. Definitely not like Rosa Parks and racism, its interesting you do though. Do you think that Rosa would have seen it that way?

I'm not as excited about the things that are trending which you mention, it all seems very Frankenstein and mad science like to me. Interesting reading your thoughts on the matter though.

Here in lies the problem. You see it as 'trending' implying some sort of perverse temporary deviation. People have identified as the opposite gender, some mixture of both or none at all for thousands of years possibly much further back. The difference is acceptance and moving in a direction which allows it. This is progress. It is not a trend it is acceptance.

Idk what Rosa Parks would think on gender, i'd be interested to find out if any info is out there. I imagine she would have been open to at least discussing it. But gender issues are a funny thing, it really does divide people who you thought would be singing from the same hymn sheet. Often people quote things like 'Christian values' when actually it's just personal prejudice. I have known plenty of highly religious people much more open to the ideas of gender fluidity and progressive thought than one might imagine.

 

[Tilt]

Gender is a social construct.

 

[Coriolis]

To be honest, I think there's both the biology and the cognitive differences, now, that gets called "binary thinking" and condemned every which way but I dont mind that, I dont mind engaging in binary thinking at all, I do think that "biology is destiny" and there's nothing wrong with that at all. It means I'm liable to be labelled a chauvinist, hater, all sorts of things by different LGBT thought police but I dont care. Other people are going to have other opinions and they might even make public policy because they are fashionable and popular, that's fine, they can do that, that's OK, I'll just breath after my own fashion and think what I like about it. Freedom ought to be freedom for those that disagree.

Everyone is welcome to their own opinions and ideas, but not to act on them in ways that limit opportunities and rights for others. From what I have read, cognitive sex differences are relatively minor, vary quite a bit within each biological sex, and are easily overridden, much as a hereditary tendency toward alcoholism can be overridden by deliberate behaviors and choices. Biology is destiny only if we refuse to recognize whatever residual urges remain and rise above them when they do not serve our purposes.

I'm excited for the day when we all have the capabilities of bearing children. I think it's one of the next evolutionary step, we seem to be catching up to this psychologically much faster than biologically.

Some animal species have developed it already, though in pretty simple terms. The banana slug has even be known to impregnante itself. As for the bigger god picture well, idk that's a rather larger topic.

Are we all part of some pre thought out plan? Is it going as it should?

I am more interested in the development of artificial womb technology. That would at least preserve the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction.

Well, that is one way of considering it, I did say in the first post how I thought the idea that positions of power being anathema to femininity could result in a reinforcing of oppression by simply excluding women from high office, however, I would not say that its a stereotype. Its more along the lines of regular anarchism, being closely wedded to the all or nothing idea involves foregoing any good that might come from piece meal reform, you know? There is no stereotype involved there, just consistency with first principles.

What first principles are these? I still don't see the connection between feminism and anarchy. The idea that positions of power were antithetical to femininity was indeed used to exclude women from them; same argument was made about most education and professions. That association has been demonstrated to be patently false. The notion that I was calling a stereotype is any depiction of femininity that features fragilty - both mental and physical, dependence, emotionality, irrationality, etc. I wonder sometimes whether the traditional notions of masculine and feminine were designed to assign the "better" traits to men and the lesser ones to women, in a sort of circular argument. By such reasoning, women should be excluded from the opportunities and roles taken on by men because these were against their nature, and any woman who demonstrated the capability to take them on was "unfeminine".

Frankly, you know that most of us heterosexual men have to put our penises somewhere to feed our phallic disposition. Nature as it is, and we're responding to our current programming.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that, in the modern age at least, satisfaction of sexual urges is no longer inextricably linked to reproduction.

Instead, I'd propose, that we remain men and women, distinct, different, very different biological destinies, but instead of seeing to erase that difference we recognise it and celebrate it. Equality does not involve sameness. Equality is not uniformity. That is fascism or communism or something like that. Its not equality. Equality might involve treating people very differently, the point is that they are being treated fairly and impartially.

For instance, some people require spectacles to see, others require assists to mobility, ie crutches, walking sticks, a cool cane, wheelchairs or scooters, because those people need those assists does not mean that everyone ought to have those things or that a standardized, uniform issuing of the same ought to happen.

Men and women are far more similar than different. The only differences that amount to "biological destiny" are our complementary functions in the act of reproduction. Anything more is an external imposition. I don't see all that much to celebrate there, though certainly nothing to be ashamed of. I would rather celebrate our different cultures, talents, personalities, even appearance.

Yes, people are different, in many ways. When members of demographic groups speak of equality, it is equality of opportunity, rights, and responsibilities, not identity. Your examples focus on real physical limitations experienced by some people. There will always be some of these. It is great to develop techologies and social structures that help people overcome them as much as possible. At minimum, though, we need to remove artificial limitations that exclude people based on group membership, irrespective of their actual abilities or limitations.

There's no desperation and there is no UNFAIR discrimination. Not for a moment. Although I do hate a lot of the distorted and atrophied versions of political correct thinking I encounter online, I do care about equality and a better world for everyone and what I encounter with things like desperate androgyny is really not it. .

Do your remarks, then, reflect FAIR discrimination? What do you consider to be fair discrimination? Androgyny might have less appeal if we stopped trying to put men and women into boxes, holding them to standards that are often a very poor fit.

I'm not as excited about the things that are trending which you mention, it all seems very Frankenstein and mad science like to me. Interesting reading your thoughts on the matter though.

That is a common reaction of traditionalists to change, especially significant change. It can take some time to get used to new knowledge and ideas, especially if it contradicts long-held beliefs and practices. If one keeps the difference between thought and action in mind, though, that should keep things in perspective.

 

[Sacrophagus]

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that, in the modern age at least, satisfaction of sexual urges is no longer inextricably linked to reproduction.

That's beside the point.

If you missed it, that part was specific to heterosexual men who enjoy fucking. There is no mention of reproduction there.

 

[Coriolis]

That's beside the point.

If you missed it, that part was specific to heterosexual men who enjoy fucking. There is no mention of reproduction there.

The mention is implicit. You wrote "nature as it is", suggesting that that particular urge on the part of heterosexual men has its roots in biology. I won't disagree, but those biological roots evolved to ensure procreation, a connection broken by modern medicine. Good thing, as otherwise that urge would have led us into even more difficulty than it already has.

 

[Ceresc]

Ah. Okay, that phrasing makes more sense to me. Thank you.

 

[Ceresc]

- - - Updated - - -

I still feel a bit lost as to what you are talking about... could you elaborate more?

I have been exploring typology/psychology/neuroscience just for fun. My mother disagrees with all of it and could care less. To which, I brought up her devoutness to the Christian faith. Specifically because my middle son recently had an existential crisis because he didn't want to go to a Heaven where you could only feel joy and it thought it was unfair that he would have to go to Hell to experience sadness; and I was basically telling her to lay off the Jesus talk when they went to spend vacation time there.
My mother and I were discussing marriage/ relationships according to the Bible, because my oldest son just came out as what he labeled "bi-curious" a few months ago and his grandmother is the last person to know. (She's not very lenient) And I was sort of feeling her out because my oldest wants her acceptance but doesn't want to tell her if she won't be accepting. She essentially said, "marriage is a man and a woman." And I said well maybe its about archetype or personality type or anima vs animus.
And that's what got me thinking.