My Genes Made Me Do It!

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Linen53

Previously, I was talking about is the consciousness that is left over after the body ceases to exist. That's the part that I can't prove that exists and continues, though, personally, I believe it does

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Previously, I was talking about is the consciousness that is left over after the body ceases to exist. That's the part that I can't prove that exists and continues, though, personally, I believe it does.

I believe being alive is part of the definition of "consciousness" i.e. more complex consciousness is a biological and biologicals/souls are inherently alive.

The simplest consciousness is twoness, otherness. Ive covered that in many threads around here over the years. Humans being the most complex conssiousness with woman being more complex than man.

What remains after we die is inanimate execept for the bacteria and viruses, fermions, bosons, gravity and dark energy.

Love the dark energy mention...spot on.

BUT I have to say, in the past or other lives I recall as a man, I did not ever feel less complex as a man than as a woman. Likewise for those lives as a woman, I simply felt largely ignored and thus largely misunderstood -- but as a direct and logical outcome of being largely ignored in the totality of my humanity.

That is...and let me speak bluntly...the male sex drive aside, which certainly can be managed and disciplined and productively channeled...and aside from the female experience of pregnancy and menstruation...though these are noteworthy and impactful...

...in my experience, there is NO substantive difference in the either the potential or in the actualisation of awareness, feeling, capacity for love, intellectual strength and clarity, communication, growth in consciousness, or even in the apprehension of reality -- between males and females. Not in the hearts, nor the minds, nor the soul...none of it. Believe me when I say any measurable or quantifiable "differences" of heart, mind, and soul are almost entirely overlays which bend us away from our true centre, our true nature, and our true capacity for humanity.

EXCEPT as is culturally overlaid and mandated that we must and will directly experience life, dignity, opportunity, bodily safety and integrity, and violence and bodily violation in vastly different ways -- due largely to culture and society and various hierarchical, power-over beliefs. And only secondarily due to biological differences, which can be cared for with dignity and respect and do not ever mandate oppression or overlays of moral or spiritual or intellectual inferiority of anyone vs anyone else.

To explicitly get down to it, I think the experience of vulnerability and oppression (i.e., of physical weakness, physical vulnerability, curtailment of voice and liberty, of oppression, of sexual exploitation and violence, and of violence and exploitation more broadly) as women is -- far and away -- the most impactful, immediate, ever-present and vastly, hugely, and qualitatively different aspect of woman's lives. As opposed to men's lives.

And these are all aspects of difference which we could disappear tomorrow, had we but the will, the desire, to do so and to live in a different world and in a different way. One that shuns power-over and embraces authentic love.

Peace & blessings
7L

[r6r6]

7luminaries--Love the dark energy mention...spot on.

Unlike multi-verses, there exists evidence for dark energy )(--- opposite of gravity ( ) ---even tho there is very little known about it.

the male sex drive aside, which certainly can be managed and disciplined and productively channeled...

I do we compare male and female sex drives? They both have them. Fuller states that men are pushers woman are attractors.

I had a thought yesterday, that some or most women can remain more aloof insofar as they do not need to look for a man because men will seek out women.

and aside from the female experience of pregnancy and menstruation...though these are noteworthy and impactful...

Xx and Xy are differrent and there are some obvious diffferrences between man and woman as well as lab studies that show brain function differrences

...in my experience, there is NO substantive difference in the either the potential or in the actualisation of awareness, feeling, capacity for love, intellectual strength and clarity, communication, growth in consciousness, or even in the apprehension of reality -- between males and females. Not in the hearts, nor the minds, nor the soul...none of it.

But in brain, mmary glands, reproductive system and couple of areas there is a significant physical if not emotional and mental differrences, specifically and in general. imho

Ive covered a lot of those in another thread. Genes/codons make the male and the female.

Sex = bio-diversity. Yeah for sex! We would not be here with out it.

[7luminaries]

r6, LOL............
My brother...essentially none (approaching 0%) of the comments you made would be made by 99% of the world's women, if they are being totally honest.

This one kills me....but you are quite right:

I had a thought yesterday, that some or most women can remain more aloof insofar as they do not need to look for a man because men will seek out women.

Em. BINGO. Hahahaha.............but in truth that's only the half of it. Aside from having kids, women don't need sex. They simply don't. They may actually desire it if there is already a mutual authentic love first and foremost between the partners as people and as friends. NOT as "sex partners" and nothing else...that's revolting. But otherwise, it's simply bonding glue or meeting men's demands...and we literally much prefer to leave it. We simply don't need it at all unless it is loving and committed.

I think this all needs to be taught early on, so that the thought is foremost from day 1 in men's minds, and no one has to struggle to come to this realisation.

Many traditions say the equivalent of the truth that it is wrong to put stumbling blocks in front of the blind, meaning anything that is necessary for one's well-being and functioning needs to be provided and the way forward NOT made unnecessarily obscure and obstructed.

Xx and Xy are differrent and there are some obvious diffferrences between man and woman as well as lab studies that show brain function differrences

Although this is not untrue, it is so far from the totality of truth that it is not only misdirects and limits clear apprehension of the reality of our being...it limits and misdirects us in ways that are severely debilitating and even dangerous to our development as a species.

We are different and yet at the same time we are the same. The spectrum of overlap between men and women (in all but upper body strength), just as with rich and poor, etc., has not even begun to be maximized...as we are still deep in hierarchy, discrimination, segregation, and oppression as a species.

The vast majority of our experiences are majority differentiated by how we value our differences, how we devalue our differences, and how we relate and respect the dignity and worth of one another, in our differences. We have made difference an axis of discrimination and oppression. We could just as easily not do so.

Peace & blessings
7L

More to the topic, I am wondering what people are going to say when designer people become common.

Now that we understand how to read and manipulate genetics, it's GOING to happen, sooner or later.

[r6r6]

luminaries---r6, LOL............My brother...essentially none (approaching 0%) of the comments you made would be made by 99% of the world's women, if they are being totally honest.

Then we disagree on some lab study facts.

Aside from having kids, women don't need sex. They simply don't.They may actually desire it if there is already a mutual authentic love first and foremost between the partners as people and as friends.

I think what your saying, in a round-a-bout way, is that women dont have desire for sex, unless there in love with a man.

Whereas a man has a desire for sex, even if they do not love the woman.

As for authentic love, that is a matter of degree. Humans are attracted to other humans first and foremost because most humans desire human attention.

I believe there exists degrees of love, authentic{ what ever that means } or love other than authentic{ whatever that is }.

Is there a love gene/codon set? Which ones are they? Are the the ones that also involve empathy parts of brain i.e. feeling what others feel? Ex we see someone else yawn and we have the feeling to yawn.

If we see someone else having sex some people--- men more than women ---will have genetic sexual response some degree of the time.

NOT as "sex partners" and nothing else...that's revolting. But otherwise, it's simply bonding glue or meeting men's demands...and we literally much prefer to leave it. We simply don't need it at all unless it is loving and committed.

Bonding is love. We bond/love.

What is Ive heard said about men and women regarding sex, men just need a place, women need a reason. This is not exclude women having a desire for sex only that they require and additional factor for bonding/loving.

I think this all needs to be taught early on, so that the thought is foremost from day 1 in men's minds, and no one has to struggle to come to this realisation.

Simple facts of sex need to taught early on because that is the strongest humans desire beyond air, water, food and going to bathroom.

We are different and yet at the same time we are the same.

Yes were humans yet we have some differrences,--- Xx - Xy ---that you do concede, to whatever degree.

The spectrum of overlap between men and women (in all but upper body strength), just as with rich and poor, etc., has not even begun to be maximized...as we are still deep in hierarchy, discrimination, segregation, and oppression as a species.

And then there is the spectrum of differrences.

Peace & blessings
7L

To all a good night. r6

[linen53]

r6 and 7L I really can't take part in your conversation because I'm not as smart as r6 and though I do have memories of past lives, some of them as men, I have only brief showings of them. One life in particular was as a Nordic warrior and we had just returned on a raiding party. My thoughts were deep and very complex in the segment of the memory. But that still does not qualify me take part in your conversation.

It's nice that the two of you can agree on some things and agree to disagree on others without all the hostility I often see on this forum.

Kioma, you bring up an interesting idea. Selective gene bundles, lol. As science is untangling our genetic codes and deciding what genes do what, I think there will be the desire to incorporate better genes that will bring about a more perfect human being.

Then you will have the haves and the have-nots. Those who have designer offspring as opposed to the Imperfects who biologically match genes with their sex partner. And we've all seen science fiction movies where we have the privileged society living in a Utopian a privledged home in the sky and the Imperfects, uneducated and living on the surface of the war-devastated Earth. Lol, had to set the scene.

But this scenario still doesn't change that we are living in the 3D to learn. Okay, so it's a different society set-up (no middle class society) but we will still have the have and the have-nots.

Are the Utopians of an older soul make-up or are they very young? Interesting to think about.

Are we saying that we know how to create perfect human beings and our Creators did not? Why would they give us genes that create dark behavior when they could have made us perfect in the beginning?

[baro-san]

Originally Posted by linen53

r6 and 7L I really can't take part in your conversation because I'm not as smart as r6 and though I do have memories of past lives, some of them as men, I have only brief showings of them. One life in particular was as a Nordic warrior and we had just returned on a raiding party. My thoughts were deep and very complex in the segment of the memory. But that still does not qualify me take part in your conversation.

It's nice that the two of you can agree on some things and agree to disagree on others without all the hostility I often see on this forum.

Kioma, you bring up an interesting idea. Selective gene bundles, lol. As science is untangling our genetic codes and deciding what genes do what, I think there will be the desire to incorporate better genes that will bring about a more perfect human being.

Then you will have the haves and the have-nots. Those who have designer offspring as opposed to the Imperfects who biologically match genes with their sex partner. And we've all seen science fiction movies where we have the privileged society living in a Utopian a privledged home in the sky and the Imperfects, uneducated and living on the surface of the war-devastated Earth. Lol, had to set the scene.

But this scenario still doesn't change that we are living in the 3D to learn. Okay, so it's a different society set-up (no middle class society) but we will still have the have and the have-nots.

Are the Utopians of an older soul make-up or are they very young? Interesting to think about.

Are we saying that we know how to create perfect human beings and our Creators did not? Why would they give us genes that create dark behavior when they could have made us perfect in the beginning?

Nice take! Great "questions"!

[linen53]

baro-san, I amazed myself after I read what I wrote, lol. Let's see what our people have to say about it.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Then we disagree on some lab study facts.

r6, hello there.
Probably because they reveal only a superficial layer of reality, if taken apart from the larger context of our reality, so yes.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

I think what your saying, in a round-a-bout way, is that women dont have desire for sex, unless there in love with a man.

Whereas a man has a desire for sex, even if they do not love the woman.

Yes, I'm saying that and much more, actually, regarding women. I'm saying that even during the time in a young woman's life where she is yes biologically driven to have children, a woman can and does pursue deep emotional intimacy, bonding, and authentic love with many if not all her close relationships, for her entire life.

There is no need for a man per se as a partner, unless he too is engaged in a mutual authentic love with her first and foremost as a person and as a friend. Excluding situations of desperation or coercion and so forth....as those are poor reasons indeed. Unless he can add to her life and give of himself freely in ways that are beneficial and meaningful to her, rather than simply taking or demanding, there is no real upside.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

As for authentic love, that is a matter of degree. Humans are attracted to other humans first and foremost because most humans desire human attention.

I believe there exists degrees of love, authentic{ what ever that means } or love other than authentic{ whatever that is }.

I disagree as to your understanding, as I understand it...hahaha. There is no actual difference in degree, in that authentic love is unchanging and uncorruptible at core. What there is, are differences in soul resonance with our close soul family versus others (if we are aware of those things), where we may channel authentic love more strongly, purely and freely, if we are able -- and also there are differences situationally in how we channel or express this, which vary based on the relationship and what is appropriate to it. But the authentic love itself is simply What Is.

Authentic love amongst humanity manifests in both intention and action: in actively seeking and actively desiring the highest good of the other(s) equally to the self, and of the self equally to the other. (For more explanation on what is the baseline highest good for humanity generally, see my last few responses to Greenslade on the "Individual Origins" thread by God-Like under Spiritual Development.)

Is there a love gene/codon set? Which ones are they? Are the the ones that also involve empathy parts of brain i.e. feeling what others feel? Ex we see someone else yawn and we have the feeling to yawn.

I think the authentic love "info" is located just as the mystics have always said...in the point of singularity that overlays all realms. The divine spark by which spirit enters and animates the temple of the body. The singularity is said to be metaphysically contiguous or present within the physical heart. More broadly put, it lies at our centres, the core of who we are.

If we see someone else having sex some people--- men more than women ---will have genetic sexual response some degree of the time.

Let's state this another way. Loads of women would feel only revulsion, and/or perhaps embarrassment for the folks on display. I myself would have no response at all other than repulsion at a private act laid bare callously and publicly, and it would not hold my interest for any longer than it took to figure out what I was seeing.

Are you beginning to get the depth of the difference between most men and most women here? Of course if we feel truly loved by a specific individual for our unique souls (and NOT just for our bodies or parts which are common to all), then we no longer feel apathy or even strong repulsion for the sex act, but may even come to welcome the touch of that particular man, if we love him as a partner in return. Most of the time, we will love most men we come to know deeply simply as friends and not feel the resonance of a partner required for sexual intimacy, as that occurs at the soul level and doesn't just occur because a man is horny or is physically attracted to us and half the other women around him. When a man realises the deepest level of intimacy is the soul level of authentic love -- which absolutely does NOT require sex and often will NOT involve sex -- ONLY THEN is a man truly capable of authentic love in partnership, where sexual intimacy is finally right and desirable for most women.

Bonding is love. We bond/love.

If you are talking about emotional, spiritual, and intellectual bonding, or sharing time and activities or sport, etc., then I agree. Authentic love is not sex and is not created by sex. Non-sexual bonding is universal and potentially eternal if it is also an authentically loving bond, whether family, beloved friends, neighbours, partners, or whomever.

If you are talking about sex as equivalent to "bond/love", I think most men AND women would strongly disagree. The chemical that encourages men to sleep after sex (LOL hahaha) is just that. It is inherited from the animal kingdom as a crude way of handling a barbaric and animalistic level of humanity via a form of sex addiction. Ensuring that a man's habitual craving for sex would keep him around long enough to stick around and protect women & infants.

But as we can see in the modern world, if we were ever moronic enough to think otherwise for even a moment, we cannot manufacture authentic love through any means, and certainly not through sex or crude chemicals. We can only open to it with grace and allow ourselves to channel that love in our being and doing, in both giving and receiving.

What is Ive heard said about men and women regarding sex, men just need a place, women need a reason. This is not exclude women having a desire for sex only that they require and additional factor for bonding/loving.

No...not true for a vast majority of women when viewed throughout most of their lives.

The only time a woman may truly appear to reliably seem to crave sex is for deeply emotional reasons tied into her biology. That is, it's for much deeper bio-spiritual reasons of children and nurturing and emotional connection that push her to mate. Because it is our way and our core nature, most women prefer to seek mates whom they hope or believe love them specifically and (ideally) authentically and absolutely NOT at all just for sex or for various conditional reasons (appearance, type, etc).

And as we come into our adulthood, women come to consciously realise this ever more strongly. That is, after a woman's had her children and/or reached a spiritual maturity (which often occurs even in young women who've had children), women more and more own what they really crave and desire is authentically loving and meaningfully intimate relationships in ALL their close relationships. None of this has anything to do with sex. Sex is incidental for women in general. Meaning it's optional, depending. It is potentially or often desired IF loving and committed BUT it's strongly repulsive and disgusting if lacking authentic love and soul resonance, or if coerced (all of which feel more or less the same to most of us). Otherwise we tend to be neutral or apathetic regarding sex per se and it is simply not at the forefront.

Many men really, really need to take all of that in.

Women often have truly loving and supportive friendships and often with close family too if they are lucky enough to have that option. Women who have come into their spiritual and emotional maturity/awareness certainly don't require sex AND we don't feel any pressure whatsoever to have to give sex out to men we barely know who make no effort at all to engage emotionally or get to know us slowly as people, over time.

If a woman has her say and is not in a desperate or constrained situation...then if a man wants sex with a healthy, stable, mature woman who's over 35 or 40 and has come into her spiritual maturity (and particularly if she's had her kids), he is going to have to take some time and get to know her, appreciate her, and love her as a person. Else just beat it, no pun intended. Dire financial straits, or slags and predators, and so forth excepted, of course. But you've have to increasingly go for the dregs, or else go for desperate women, in order to avoid this natural progression of our maturity, toward our centres.

Simple facts of sex need to taught early on because that is the strongest humans desire beyond air, water, food and going to bathroom.

I appreciate that for yourself and most men, you speak truly and that's fine. But again, women either procreate or they do not. Past that phase of our lives, if not already from the get-go, we broadly approach sex from an entirely different perspective. Sex can be appropriately is situated with a context of authentic love so that we may truly desire it long-term. Or, if we find ourselves dealing with troglodytes or emotional juveniles or egotists (due to the unfortunate era and the toxic mainstream culture of our day) that's fine, we can just leave off till humanity as a whole finds its feet and grows up a bit. Coz if we've got love in our lives and we've had our kids, then who cares, frankly? It's like that.

Sex is not on the same level as those other items you mention which are necessary for individual life. Sex is only necessary at the species level. Women are simply not burdened by the ongoing drive or requirement of having to have a man in order to shag. Put another way, it's easily, readily, and regularly simply channeled into intimate and loving relationships with ANYone close to us. And sex without love is so strongly repulsive to a majority of women since it is equivalent spiritually and emotionally to rape, so it is not even remotely enticing for many of us without a deep agape love for us as people and as friends BEFORE any sex. All in all, it's simply very liberating and the clarity is pure bliss...and I definitely appreciate this aspect of being a woman.

If a man wants sex straight up he should transparently pay for IMO and do no harm. If a man wants sex honestly and without coercion, misdirection, and/or lies and deceit, AND also to be freely desired and authentically loved long-term, then basically he has to man up and develop his humanity, such that he is capable of authentic love, of emotional vulnerability, and emotional generosity in general and in friendship. And only then also in partnership. These are the works of a lifetime, so seems many of the gents had better get on it if the same old tired rubbish is finally wearing thin, hahaha

Yes were humans yet we have some differrences,--- Xx - Xy ---that you do concede, to whatever degree.
To all a good night. r6

Indeed we do and that is true, for the majority, leaving it at that.
I've much enjoyed the convo. I hope some of the men who may read this begin to get an inkling of where women are truly coming from. On this one topic perhaps more than almost any other, women are light years apart from most men. But perhaps, if we can meet in the middle in authentic love, it does not have the remain that way for humanity in future.

Peace & blessings
And now I am also winding down!
7L

[r6r6]

luminaries--- I'm saying that apart from the time in a young woman's life where she is yes biologically driven to have children, a woman can and does pursue deep emotional intimacy, bonding, and authentic love with many if not all her close relationships.

I think there exists a time for both men and women when there is overwhelming desire to have sex. You dont seem to believe that is so.

Both men and women desire a bonding/loving relationship. You dont seem to believe that either.

More specifics on the above later below.

... in that authentic love is unchanging and uncorruptible at core.

I think this belief keeps you from having a broader consideration of what bonding/love is and can be. Too narrow for my tastes.

Authentic love amongst humanity manifests in both intention and action: in actively seeking and actively desiring the highest good of the other(s) equally to the self, and of the self equally to the other.

Spirit-1, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual spirit-of-intent. Ive referenecd this above many times in many threads over the years.

I think the authentic love "info" is located just as the mystics have always said...in the point of singularity that overlays all realms.

I was asking where in the genetic code{ codons } does the gene for bondinglove. Your comment above appears to me as meangingless mystiscism and not an actual location in the body of man and/or woman.

The divine spark by which spirit enters and animates the temple of the body.

Again, meaningless mysticism to me. Not grounded in scientific foundation.

The singularity is said to be metaphysically contiguous or present within the physical heart.

Sorry 7L, more meaningless mystiscism. No scientific basis, that I'm aware of.

More broadly put, it lies at our centres, the core of who we are.

I think I asked Linen about a similar statement. Where is the "centres" "core" located in the human body?

...."r6--A human yawns and another human sees that has an empthetic reaction/response they often time yawn also.
These two are similar situations of empathising. imho
....r6--If we see someone else having sex some people--- men more than women ---will have genetic sexual response some degree of the time."

I believe men are more sexually activated/stimulated via visual images than women. I dont know about audio.

Let's state this another way. Loads of women would feel only revulsion, and/or perhaps embarrassment for the folks on display. I myself would have no response at all other than repulsion at a private act laid bare callously and publicly, and it would not hold my interest for any longer than it took to figure out what I was seeing.

This goes to men being the primary viewers of porn. Again, men sexually stimulated/activated by visuals more than women is my belief.

Are you beginning to get the depth of the difference between most men and most women here?

Mostly over the years Ive focused more on the genetic manifest physical differrences, however, as I stated previously, I belive that men tend to only require a place{ to have sex } women tend to need a place and a reason.

For me this goes back to lab studies that show when asked a series of questions, women brains tend to become more activated in both hemi-spheres than men.

I.e. women have the same sexual desires, but another part of their brain also needs to be satisfied. Men may not get that for the most part, and they will say anything the woman wants to hear, just so they can get on with the getting it on.

Of course if we feel truly loved by a specific individual for our unique souls (and NOT just for our bodies or parts which are common to all),

May relationships are based on compansionship, and/or along with a sexual relationship.

. When a man realises the deepest level of intimacy is the soul level of authentic love -- which absolutely does NOT require sex and often will NOT involve sex -- ONLY THEN is a man truly capable of authentic love in partnership, where sexual intimacy is finally right and desirable for most women.

I'm not aware of any science based studies of regarding a depth of intimacy as correlated to any soul level of authentic love. Again, authentic love is will need to be better clarified/defined to a degree that both men and women can agree upon.

Authentic love is not sex and is not created by sex. Non-sexual bonding is universal and potentially eternal if it is also an authentically loving bond, whether family, beloved friends, neighbours, partners, or whomever.

I dont believe your authentic love refutes sexual relationship. I think authentic love would be all inclusive and all includes a sexual relationship if one of the partners desire that.

If you are talking about sex as equivalent to "bond/love", I think most men AND women would strongly disagree.

Ditto my above. Authentic love is all inclusive i.e. sex is not to considered revulsive, not considered as and intimate part of having a bonding/loving relationship.

The chemical that encourages men to sleep after sex (LOL hahaha) is just that. It is inherited from the animal kingdom as a crude way of handling a barbaric and animalistic level of humanity via a form of sex addiction.

That rarely has ever happen to me. Do you a link to some scientific type{ Ex Johnson and Johnson studies?

But as we can see in the modern world, if we were ever moronic enough to think otherwise for even a moment, we cannot manufacture authentic love through any means, and certainly not through sex or crude chemicals.

Genetics is chemistry. Hormones is chemistry. The sex drive is strong Luke Skywalker and Princess Lela{?}.

The only time a woman may truly appear to reliably seem to crave sex is for deeply emotional reasons tied into her biology.

Ditto my above, and as stated earlier, women have and additional factor. Having an additional factor does not exclude the genetic desire. imho

....most women prefer to seek mates whom they hope or believe love them specifically and (ideally) authentically and absolutely NOT at all just for sex or for various conditional reasons (appearance, type, etc).

Women like to know they are pretty and desired.

Men like to know that they are wanted. Authentically wanted?

Sex is incidental for women in general. Meaning it's potentially or often desired IF loving and committed BUT it's strongly repulsive and disgusting if lacking authentic love and soul resonance, or if coerced (all of which feel more or less the same to most of us). Men really, really need to take that in.

Incidental
:accompanying but not a major part of something.

• occurring by chance in connection with something else.
  
  

2....liable to happen as a consequence of (an activity)



Again, men sexual desire requires only a place, a womans is both a place and a reason{ emotional etc }



Sex is not on the same level as those other items you mention which are necessary for individual life. Sex is only necessary at the species level.


Sex and compansion is is neccesary for many men and women. imho

Women are simply not burdened by the ongoing drive or requirement of having to have a man in order to shag. Put another way, it's easily, readily, and regularly simply channeled into intimate and loving relationships with ANYone close to us.

That goes back to men being the main market for porn.

And sex without love is so strongly repulsive to a majority of women since it is equivalent spiritually and emotionally to rape, so it is not even remotely enticing for many of us without a deep agape love for us as people and as friends BEFORE any sex.

Equating rape with sex seems incorrect to me. Sorry to hear you feel that way.

All in all, it's simply very liberating and the clarity is pure bliss...and I definitely appreciate this aspect of being a woman.

If you believe that a sexual organsim is not also pure bliss then again, I think your missing the boat of genetic chemistry all humans share.

And only then also in partnership.

There exists partnership whenever two agree to do so. Let none put asunder what God has put together or some such saying like that. Fullers opens one of his most comprehensive book with that quote and address to his wife.

On this one topic perhaps more than almost any other, women are light years apart from most men. But perhaps, if we can meet in the middle in authentic love, it does not have the remain that way for humanity in future.

I agree that men and women have differrences--- light years or a city block ----can be disscussed, but not very scientifically is my best guess.

Peace & blessings
And now I am also winding down!
7L

And to all a good night. r6