“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

[...] It may be your sex role or your professional role. [...]

As mentioned earlier, Ruburt’s sex, as Jane, was also connected, for he carried the beliefs of his culture that a woman would be ridiculed twice as quickly as a man. [...]

[...] Hence his passivity in many instances, and his avoidance of sex.

[...] Many sessions ago however Seth explained that this male or female orientation had little if anything to do with sex as we conceive it.

A conflict as to sexual requirements developed, as various qualifications were held for the sexes in the countries in which he lived. [...]

[...] He is not “he,” if you are thinking in terms of sex. [...]

[...] In basic terms, of course, All That Is is quite beyond any designations having to do with any one species or sex. [...]

The sexes will be reversed and your mother will make a fine husband. [...]

[...] Such a stand will automatically clear up all problems involving things like taxes, sex roles, or whatever—on both of your parts.

To sum up Seth’s somewhat amused comments in the 12th session for January 2, 1964: “Sex, regardless of all of your fleshy takes, is a psychic phenomenon, merely certain qualities which you call male and female. [...]

Now my friend Ruburt will not like this, and will object on general principles, but I am speaking on personalities and not necessarily on sexes. [...]

[...] And in that area, you should also forget any idea of sex roles in conventional terms. [...]

[...] Psyche will mention my ideas about sex, for example, and will be bought by some people because of that subject alone, who will be again led to the other books. [...]

The sex was denied on a physical level to a large extent, as he read so-called psychic books. [...]

[...] Seth gave the sex of the child in answer to my question, thus eliminating Loren’s son Doug, who was 13 at the time. [...]

The matter of Seth’s sex also arises here. [...]

3. Our dictionary defines a soul mate as one of the opposite sex with whom an individual “has a deeply personal relationship” — a mundane enough description. [...]

[...] A woman might feel that the qualities of a mother almost stand in opposition to those of an exuberant sex mate. [...]

[...] Why does he speak of Jane as a male — and so as “he” and “him?” In Note 6 for Session 679, in Volume 1, I quoted Seth from the 12th session for January 2, 1964:) Sex, regardless of all your fleshy tales, is a psychic phenomenon, merely certain qualities which you call male and female. [...]

[...] Seth hasn’t said so yet — nor have we asked him — but I suspect that an energy gestalt like the entity is much more aware than we can be of its “hidden” opposite-sex form — or forms; for there may be many of them.

In Seth Speaks, Seth developed Jung’s ideas about the anima and the animus by stating that such other-sex qualities or personifications within each of us actually represent memories of past lives. [...]

[...] No generalizations can completely answer these questions however, for despite them individuals, regardless of their sex, will show great variations in the dream images that they recall or forget entirely.

[...] All of the beliefs connected with the sex were of course erroneous, but they were part and parcel of that “rational” framework itself.