+ I am familiar with Oneida. I am not so much interested in group marriage as I am in the institution of marriage itself..as in why do we need it? I have thought long and hard about it..if we didn’t have religion, would we need the institution of marriage? Marriage or rather formal legal marriage seems to be largely for the benefit of the state so they can tax and interfere with lives of citizens. Religion itself seems to need a large population all the time...I have never believed that there has been a true separation of church and state anywhere in the world...the state just seamlessly took over the power over how people live from religious institutions.

If we magically ‘forget’ the concept of marriage, as we know it tomorrow..what would change for us?

NOTHING.

+ Re Friday: I wonder if Heinlein made her AP only because she could be considered as ‘the other’ which likely separated the experiences of her character from the writer and the reader’s own identity and projections. If that’s what Heinlein tried to do, he failed.

I am trying to tie this back to how we would..in the future..consider cyborgs or robots or other APs. What would define sentience? I think heinlein..in his own way...was probably testing..Asimov like..rights and treatment of sentient non humans.

+ re male/female sexual proclivities, I think Heinlein did not take it lightly. I will fear no evil was entirely dedicated to the questions of what defines gender and what is it like to be trapped in the other genders body/mind. He approached the subject fearlessly. But apparently he was gravely ill and we don’t know who really ‘finished’ the book beyond the first draft. But it certainly sounded like Heinlein. This is one of the reasons I adore Heinlein.

+ you said, “your sentence suggests that neither of us are male”. You inadvertently touched upon a pet theory of mine. That ‘malesness’ is a mutation. All zygotes are female by default. It’s because of SRY gene that it turns ‘male’, as it were...being ‘male’ is merely ‘not being female’ having mutated from the default. So I consider the Y to be largely faulty code. I am not being a ‘rabid feminist’...I have been called that before but it can’t be more further than the truth..I do not hate men...I just find them amusing and interesting and annoying until I find them alien.

Regardless, I am sure this wasn’t the response you were expecting. So back on topic..female desire and sexual proclivities are somewhat standardized ...that doesn’t mean that women veer from the norm. (Ditto with men), but the awkwardness with Heinlein’s portrayal of female sexuality bordering on aggressive male sexuality seems forced because it’s almost like he wants to imprint maleness as default upon the female. It’s just ...well..odd. It doesn’t ‘fit or sit well’. I cannot articulate better.

+ i did not know about Virginia and Heinlein. Having said that, I often think of the other masterpiece..Nabokov’s Lolita. But HH took the voice of the unreliable narrator. Towards the end, the reader had empathy for HH because they have walked down the path with him and at the end of it, they want to hold his hand and comfort him. He is a monster but we feel sorry for him. We ‘understand’ him. Heinlein otoh is icky..his characters are aloof and we don’t want to be seen walking with him.

+ re authors’ gender..I have often thought that the most relatable writing comes from lived experiences. While a woman can write ‘like a man’, it might just as well because her lived experience reflected that...bit Heinlein writes women like a man. And he doesn’t do it from a third person narrative but from a first person narrative..which ..like I said before just doesn’t ‘fit’right. But that’s just my 2c.