“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Even when social scientists or biologists explore human sexuality, they do so from the framework of sexuality as it appears in your world. There are quite natural sexual variations, even involving reproduction, that are not now apparent in human behavior in any culture. These variations appear in your world on only fairly microscopic levels, or in the behavior of other species than your own.

All of this becomes very complicated because of your value judgments, which oftentimes seem to lack — if you will forgive me — all natural common sense. You cannot separate biology from your own belief systems. The interplay is too vital. If each act of intercourse were meant to produce a child, you would have overrun the planet before you began. Sexual activity is therefore also meant as enjoyment, as an expression of pure exuberance. A woman will often feel her most sexually active in the midst of the menstrual period, precisely when conception is least apt to occur. All kinds of taboos against sexual relations have been applied here, particularly in so-called native cultures. In those cultures, such taboos make good sense. Such peoples, building up the human stock, intuitively knew that the population would be increased if relations were restricted to periods when conception was most likely to occur. The blood was an obvious sign that the woman at her period was relatively “barren.” Her abundance was gone. It seemed to their minds that she was indeed “cursed” during that time (emphatically).

When the process began, however, the deep power of nature had to be “controlled” so that the growing consciousness could see itself as apart from this natural source. Yet children, so necessary to the species, continued to spring from women’s wombs. Therefore the natural source was most flagrant, observable, and undeniable. For that reason the species — and not the male alone — placed so many taboos about female behavior and sexuality. In “subduing” its own female elements, the species tried to gain some psychological distance from the great natural source from which it was, for its own reasons, trying to emerge.

These are simple enough examples, but the man who possesses interests considered feminine by your culture, who naturally wants to enter fields of interest considered womanly, experiences drastic conflicts between his sense of personhood and identity — and his sexuality as it is culturally defined. The same, of course, applies to women.

Because of your exaggerated focus, you therefore become relatively blind to other aspects of “sexuality.” First of all, sexuality per se does not necessarily lead to intercourse. It can lead to acts that do not produce children. What you think of as lesbian or homosexual activity is quite natural sexual expression, biologically and psychologically. In more “ideal” environments such activity would flourish to some extent, particularly before and after prime reproductive years.

Lesbianism and homosexuality, as they are currently experienced, also represent exaggerated versions of natural inclinations, even as your experienced version of heterosexuality is exaggerated.