View Single Post
Old 11-11-2009, 09:16 PM
GroundedSpirit GroundedSpirit is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England USA
Posts: 1,231
Default Excellent points

Thanks C,
Really appreciated the thoughtful post.
We also agree that is was less than complete by leaving out the need for male realignment also - but the choice was somewhat intentional at first, based on a concern of scale.
The omission of genetic predisposition was absolutely intentionally omitted. Don't want or dare to touch THAT one ! The jury is very much still out on how rigid the genetic controls are and there's much active research underway that's strongly pointing to the fact that we have far more control over even that then was originally suspected.
Lest this turn into a scientific thread <smile> we'd like to keep the focus on soliciting input from the female population regarding their perspective on their choice (intentional or otherwise) to suppress or ignore their special sexual potential.
As another "seed" observation, we've note a 10 fold increase in bisexuality among males in the last few years. Now - not seeing this as a "bad" thing necessarily, but only as a lagging indicator of how relationships are evolving.
The primary difference being the sexual choices with the males seem to be driven out of frustration rather than thought out choices.
Our feelings are that it would not be a step "forward" were we to evolve to a point of a primarily gay & lesbian society because of the inability to openly discuss and work together on these differences.

Comments from everyone ?????
Reply With Quote