Actually I am more reminded of the Bonobo (sp?) apes
who are completely promiscuous, and a whole lot
happier than chimps. The matriarchal dimension of it is
fascinating. It would seem the males refrain from agression
towards them (ala chimps) because they don't know who the
mothers of their offspring are. Or so the documentary went.

Given that there will be an angelic dimension to our beings,
it would seem that time and place will not be dimensions
of our existence. That would make co-location, so to speak,
a distinct possibility.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Diana Manister 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 6:37 AM
  Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?

  Well then. Heaven will be full of all these sexed souls with no options but premarital relations or abstinence -- another absurdist joke on us made by our creator? heh. Diana 

    Jesus said the would be no marriage,
    but I don't think he said anything about sex. ;->

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Diana Manister 
      To: [log in to unmask] 
      Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 6:35 AM
      Subject: Re: Sex and Gender, was Jeremiah ...?

      Perhaps those social roles are fig newtons of our imaginations. It comes as news, however, that souls are sexed. I thought we could be done with all that in heaven. heh. 

      It is then astonishing how many brilliant scientists and poets and
      thinkers throughout history saw social roles.

      >>> Kate Troy <[log in to unmask]> 07/15/07 1:07 PM >>>

      As an artist (painter), it is clear to me that the differences between
      and female go beyond the biological and the contour; it is, in fact, a
      of  heart and soul, and social roles have nothing to do with it.


      In a message dated 7/15/2007 12:53:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
      [log in to unmask] writes:

      Nancy  Gish wrote:
      > Eliot is a dead poet and a topic of debate and  study, not a
      > in the debate.
      > Gender does  not mean sex, and its separate meaning is one of those
      > has become  quite distinct in usage.  It is not a euphemism for sex,
      > which  does not need a euphemism anyway, as in academic terms it
      > to  biological difference as distinguished from social roles.  Read
      > current or recent texts on gender.
      >  Nancy

      Considering how fixed the distinction between sex and gender is  I'm
      amazed that any literate person isn't familiar with it.

      Even  after making the distinction (gender = social; sex = biology)
      still  remain problems: Up until a couple centuries ago (this is debated
      by some  of course) the model was one sex, two genders: the difference
      between men  and women was a difference of degree -- women were
      incompletely 'cooked'  men. See Thomas Laqueur, _Making Sex: Body and
      Gender from the Greeks to  Freud_ (Harvard UP, 1990). See also a fine
      review by Stephen Jay Gould,  "The Birth of the Two-Sex World," NYRB,
      June 13, 1991.

      Gould  emphasizes that in terms of biology there are equal arguments for
      the  one-sex and the two-sex models. Politically I have held elsewhere
      that  probably the most desirable model is one-sex, many genders. But
      that _is_ a  POLITICAL not a biological or medical issue. The biology is
      quite neutral  on the topic.

      From Gould's review:

      The "two-sex model"  replaced this concept of woman and man as two
      on a graded continuum  with a notion of two fundamentally distinct
      entities, bearing different  organs that imply divergent behaviors and
      aptitudes; (divergent perhaps,  but still eminently rankable, for sexism
      is the one invariant in this  history of transition). Laqueur writes:

      Thus the old model, in which  men and women were arrayed according to
      their degree of metaphysical   perfection, their vital heat, along an
      axis whose telos was  male, gave way by the late eighteenth century to a
      new model of radical  dimorphism, of biological divergence. An anatomy
      and physiology of   incommensurability  replaced a metaphysics of
      hierarchy in the  representation of woman in relation to man.

      Why did this transition  occur, and why over a broad stretch of time
      centered on the early  eighteenth century? The answer cannot lie in any
      simplistic notion of  empirical discovery wrested from nature by
      triumphant science (quite a set  of male images). I shall return to the
      role of empirics among other causes  of transition later in this review,
      but a simple reason suffices to debar  factual adequacy as a primary
      agent of the switch: neither model is  "correct" by any morphological
      standard; both capture elements of  anatomical reality.


      Both models have supported  male-supremacist ideology, but in different
      ways, which can be crudely  summarized as hierarchical vs "scientific."
      Gould's review discusses that  contrast also.


      ************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new
      AOL at

      Missed the show?  Watch videos of the Live Earth Concert on MSN. 


      No virus found in this incoming message.
      Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
      Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.8/904 - Release Date: 7/16/2007 5:42 PM

  See what you're getting into.before you go there 


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
  Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.10/908 - Release Date: 7/19/2007 6:10 PM