>>A 'woman' is whatever is attracted to my 'man'.
>
>So basically, a "mate" is how I take it.
Hmmm. No. Not totally. Not in the monogamous sense, but yes in the wham bam sense, although, no argument about these qualities all being interdependent. There has to be something attracting, and the 'opposite' is what it is. The more 'opposite' things another has, the more attraction there is. Thus-
>>The problem I have with androgyneity is what I perceive as a lack of this
>>attraction. However, in a utopian-malthusian sense, lack of sexual desire
>>would help to alleviate the population problem. The only problem that
>>remains is making sure the stupidest among us become androgynes.
>Either that last sentence went right over my head, or you misconstrued my
>definition of "androgyne". Was that a joke I missed, or an unintentional
>insult?
No, no insult. It does mean, however, that, since I regard myself as a flaming heterosexual, androgynes are not attractive to _me_, and, since I am what I read as a youth, Heinlein's views of sexual society are strong in my nature- the best examples of men and women are also the most 'male' and 'female'. (And both are intelligent.) If you are truly androgynous, you may feel completely safe in my presence. Some women find _that_ insulting....
Confusion remains rampant....