You must login to vote
CHAPTER SEVEN - PERSONAL AND MARRIAGE
In Chapter one, I presented some information regarding the fact that an
adult in the perfect society will have the right to request a "gender
change" if he/she so chooses. Here, I will present information as to
how that "gender change" will be performed.
Some readers may choose to think that the "gender change" could be
accomplished with hormone therapy and medical surgery. However, for
those readers who believe in the existence of God, they should know
that God will perform the "gender changes" for perfect society humans.
That's right, God will change the gender of any perfect society adult
who chooses to request that it be done. Remember that God has God's
role and humans have human's role. In the perfect society, one of
God's role is for God to change the human body into the opposite gender
for any adult who is in harmony with God and who asks that it be done.
Evidence that God can and will do this, is to be found in the
Jewish/Christian Bible in the story about Abraham and his wife Sarai.
That Bible story tells that when Abraham was 100 and his wife was 90
they had a son together. That story also tells that Abraham's wife,
Sarai, was barren during her usual childbearing years. This meant that
God had to physically rebuild her body so that her "barren womb" became
fruitful and her breasts developed milk, so that she could suckle her
child, as it is further recorded.
Beyond those obvious "womb and breasts" physical changes that had to be
made to Sarai's body, there is the less obvious one, which is that all
of Sarai's body had to be physically renewed because a pregnancy simply
could not be endured within a 90 year old body.
Who would reasonably think that a 90 year old back, knees and legs
would be able to handle the strain that pregnancy would produce? The
only reasonable conclusion is that Sarai's entire body was renewed.
Yes, Sarai had to be completely updated with a physical body that could
successfully handle a pregnancy.
Since it was shown in that situation with Abraham and Sarai (later
called Sarah) that God could make physical changes to our present human
bodies, then it should be accepted that it is within God's ability to
change the gender of a human from male to female or female to male.
And since a person who believes in the existence of God AND that God
can do anything, should also believe that God is fair, therefore such a
person should understand that God will not refuse a "gender change"
request from any sincere adult, in the perfect society, who is living
in harmony with God.
Also, in the perfect society, all humans who are living in harmony with
God, will be periodically physically renewed so that we will continue
to live our physical existence on and on, for hundreds, thousands,
millions, even billions and trillions of years. We would not be
immortal (able to renew our own lives), because without that periodic
renewal, by God, we would die.
Since God did physical renewal for Abraham and Sarai (Abraham was
physically renewed before his involvement with Hagar), then God is
perfectly capable of physically updating you and I, ***presuming that
we become in harmony with God so that God is willing to do so***.
Yes, it certainly will be a nice way of life, to live among people who
are in harmony with God in their "outer" and "inner" behavior, else
they would not be physically renewed.
Thus, in the perfect society, those who harbor "inner" predatory
behavior will simply die off for lack of their being physically
renewed, while those who exhibit "outer" predatory behavior will be
dealt with by our human society.
In other words, there can be no hypocrites in the perfect society,
because for those who commit "outer" wrong behavior, their behavior
would be seen by others and so would be dealt with according to the
standard society procedures. While those who harbor wrong "inner"
behavior would not be renewed by God, and thus they would die.
In a physical relationship in today's society, a female's body shows
evidence of her sexual and child bearing experience, most especially
with the vaginal stretching and the loss of her physical virginity.
The male body does not experience such a physical penalty. In the
perfect society, to allow this situation to continue would be unfair to
So, in the perfect society, when a physical relationship is ended by a
female who is in harmony with God, then God will renew her body so that
she will again be a physical virgin.
Thus, she will have to bear NO physical penalty into another
relationship, nor will her new husband receive any less than her
previous husband had physical access to.
**MARRIAGE IS JOINED BY SEXUAL ACTIVITY BETWEEN A MALE AND A FEMALE**
In the perfect society, there will be NO marriage license to apply for,
nor will there be any ceremony, religious or civil, to provide "legal"
status for beginning a marriage. A marriage begins with *any* sexual
activity between a male and a female. Couples will then record their
marriages **after** they have begun their sexual relationship.
Since sexual activity begins marriage, there will be little incentive
for casual "one-night-stands" because one or the other partner MIGHT
simply record the marriage, AND THEN YOU WOULD BE MARRIED. So, in the
perfect society, one best refrain from sexual activity with anyone to
whom he/she would not like to be married with.
We presently live a "temporary" existence in which "get what one can
get now" seems to become a way of life for many. But, in the perfect
society, the prospect of death will not be hanging over our heads.
Instead we will be living lives that will continue on and on. This
means that we will have ample time to experience whatever we find
attractive to pursue. This "longevity" will have great impact on how
we conduct our lives and especially upon our love relationships.
For example, if a person is already in a happy "in love" relationship
with someone, and then meets another who he/she finds attractive, well
in the perfect society there would be no urgency to jump into a
relationship in order to "get what one can get now". Why not??
For in 10 years, a hundred years, a thousand years, or even a million
years from now, that other relationship could leisurely be explored and
savored at a more opportune time. It simply would become something to
investigate in the future, while going on enjoying what one now has.
BY THE WAY:
Our ultimate role (after the transition time) will be to explore and
populate other planets throughout the vast universe. During our
hundreds, thousands, millions, and billions of years, we will be quite
**busy** studying, inventing, traveling, exploring, and building up
cultures on many other planets. Today, humans (from the society of
Enoch) are already populating other worlds. More about this later on.
Also, that "longevity" will allow us the time to **more fully explore**
our love relationships, thereby allowing us to discover new depths in
those personal relationships.
In the perfect society, "in-love" relationships will be so much more
inclusive than just the physical, although physical love will always be
a very important part of an "in-love" partnership. Such relationships
will be honest, intellectual, physical, AND deeply emotional because we
will not have to "hold back" anything in order to protect ourselves
from future hurt, which is so frequently the case in today's society.
The freedom that people will experience in their personal
relationships, in the perfect society, is so far beyond our present
experiences, that it may be difficult for us to comprehend now. Even
people who think that they now have good love relationships, will
experience so much more, even if they are still in those very same
Of course, there are different types of "love". For example, there is
the love of a parent for a child. There is the love of a child for a
parent. There is the love for a brother or a sister. There is the love
for extended family. There is the love for a friend. AND there is the
romantic "in-love" love towards a marriage partner or for a potential
Each of those types of love are distinctive variations of the "love"
emotion, and there are differences in how we "feel" each of those love
emotions. However, NONE of those love emotions are "unconditional".
The concept that floats around within our present society that there is
such an emotion as "unconditional love" is a contradiction in terms.
ALL true love is "active" - conditional, that is, all true love gives
something - interest in the other person - concern for their welfare -
expectations that they will be doing well, willingness to help him/her,
etc., etc., etc..
And ALL true love expects to receive something, that is, love must be
sustained else love diminishes or even dies if we are not receiving
positive re-enforcement from the other person.
Family relationships can become estranged. A child can stop feeling
love for a parent. A parent can stop feeling love for a child.
Siblings can stop feeling love for each other. Yes, friends can cease
to be special. AND even "in-love with" feelings can change.
Part of the reason for this volatility in our emotions is that some of
that emotion is based upon our perceptions (how we **expect** the other
person to be) and not upon reality. As our experiences with one another
progresses, sometimes what we expect is not what we get.
But also, we sometimes can get more than we expected. In any event, in
so many relationships our emotions ebb and flow, rise or fall, based
upon how the other party interacts and relates with us.
Now, do not mis-understand what I am trying to point out. A parent may
always have some feelings toward a child, a child towards a parent, a
sibling toward another sibling, but those feelings might only be based
upon their being "kin" (by birth or legal) and that "being kin" may
provide access to one another, but not necessarily "active love", - not
the love that "invests", not the love that risks additional hurt.
When we humans are NOT treated in a manner that we expect is correct
for any given relationship, then usually we automatically "withdraw"
(shrink) our emotions so as not to continue to put ourselves at risk.
For some this may take a long, long time, especially since it involves
the loss of some cherished expectations.
Which is one reason why we have ongoing battered and/or abused persons
in our present society. They stay involved in the abusive relationship
because they want to believe their expectations rather than the sad
reality. It is very difficult, sometimes, for us to accept that reality
is so much different than our expectations (he/she will change, he/she
says "sorry", he/she says that he/she loves me, etc., etc., etc..)
ALL **true love** is conditional: "If I love you, then I will treat
you with love, and I expect you to also love me and to treat me with
love", is the usual "quid pro quo" condition of human love relations,
whether parent/child, child/parent, sibling/sibling, friend/friend or
romantic "in-love" relationships.
"Unconditional love" according to the myth, is supposed to love someone
regardless of how wretched he/she behaves. Foolishness! "Unconditional
love" according to the myth, is supposed to not expect anything from
the other person. More foolishness! Anyone with an ounce of sense and
even a small amount of life experience should be able to recognize the
foolishness of that "unconditional love" myth.
Treat someone wretchedly and return no love to that person, and that
person's love will change. It may take time, a long, long time for
some, but their love feelings will eventually be changed.
Because love that expects nothing, love that receives nothing, love
that wants nothing - is not love, but emotional sickness. When
reasonable beings love, reasonable beings "give" (their love is active
love), and they also expect return on that love. Love makes us
vulnerable - it places us at risk for possible hurt, so there must be
some type of emotional reward (return) for us to take that risk.
However, not loving, although it might seem to be safer, actually
deprives us of great emotional nourishment. That lack of emotional
nourishment is truly the more riskier condition. Since we humans are
physical beings with emotions, to love and be loved is part of our very
existence, and the romantic "in-love" relationships are a **large**
part of our emotional makeup.
Thus, one reason why we will have more deeper emotional experiences in
the perfect society, is because loving others in an honest society is a
very low risk condition.
**MALES CAN ONLY END MARRIAGE BECAUSE OF FEMALE ADULTERY**
**AFTER ONE YEAR, FEMALES CAN END A MARRIAGE WHENEVER THEY CHOOSE**
**AFTER ONE YEAR, MALES CAN HAVE MORE THAN ONE WIFE**
**CURRENT WIFE MUST BE NOTIFIED BEFORE ANOTHER MARRIAGE BEGINS**
**CURRENT WIFE CAN CHOOSE TO END HER MARRIAGE BEFORE OTHER BEGINS**
In the perfect society, males and females are **equal**. They are
**equal**, but not alike. This means that the "rules" of society must
be balanced so as to be FAIR to both males and females, but not alike.
Females are the "child bearers", which means that a female makes a
different, more physical investment into a marriage partnership (a
pregnancy usually takes 9 months of female physical investment, while
suckling the child can add 2 or more years to the physical investment).
A male usually has much less of a physical investment. In other words,
a male can more easily physically pack up and leave a relationship than
a female can potentially do so.
In recognition of this "more invested" female condition, the rules of
society allow a female the right of deciding when and IF she will end a
marriage relationship. Therefore the perfect society rule is that a
male can end a marriage relationship only because of female infidelity.
.. Since marriage is not to be entered lightly, and to eliminate the
.. potential "I marry you" in the evening and "I divorce you" in the
.. morning situation, the rule of the perfect society will be for a
.. minimum of a one year commitment in any marriage relationship.
.. Of course in the perfect society, honest people would not be looking
.. for "loopholes", so a quickie overnight marriage is not to be
.. expected. However, it is society's responsibility to have a clear
.. rule so that misinterpretations do not arise, and most reasonable
.. people will see a one year minimum as being the least to expect for
So the two counter balancing rules are these: after one year females
can end the marriage, without providing any "legal" reason, anytime
that they so choose, but males can NOT. However, after one year males
can have another spouse, but females can NOT, with the only "legal"
restriction being that the current wife must be made aware, by the
husband, of the "new marriage potential" before it is accomplished.
All marriage relationships are considered to be physically,
emotionally, and mentally exclusive relationships, so it is necessary
that a husband discuss the situation (that he is thinking about
entering another relationship) with his current wife **first**.
Then she can either end their marriage, or decide that she will accept
the altering of their marriage understanding. It is expected that a
current wife will usually choose to end her marriage.
Polygamy is not "banned" in the perfect society, leaving that for
individuals to decide based upon any unique situation. However, the
perfect society ideal is for a one to one marriage relationship, with
the belief that marriage, in order to be best enjoyed, requires the
complete investment, physical, mental, and emotional of one male with
one female. Polygamy, by its very nature, requires a dividing of the
physical, mental, and emotional away from a one to one commitment.
Adultery, in the perfect society, is a very serious offense because it
displays an anti-society dishonesty and a predatory attitude, and it
would be an offense that would require prison time in order to allow a
person the opportunity to change his/her predatory attitude.
Besides, there will be little incentive for "cheating" when a female
can end a current relationship (after one year) anytime she chooses,
and when a male (after one year) can have more than one wife.
In the perfect society, it will be understood that when someone is
interested in beginning a sexual relationship, then that person is free
and willing to make a marriage commitment of at least one year of
exclusivity, physical, mental, and emotional to that relationship.
In adultery, a person is either not free to make that commitment, or
has no intention of honoring that commitment. That is dishonesty.
That is stealing, either from an existing partner who is entitled to
his/her exclusivity, or stealing from the person who is expecting to
receive that which the dishonest person has no intention of delivering.
In our present society, much is made about remaining married, the "til
death do us part" concept. The actual result of this emphases, in so
many cases, is for unsuitable partners to remain in marriages when
there no longer are "in love" feelings between them, IF, in fact, they
ever existed. In our present society, it is surprising how many people
fraudulently enter marriage for reasons other than being "in-love".
Often, in our present society, the focus is on the philosophy that
marriage is a committment (legal and/or moral) to remain married,
regardless of the actual emotions between the partners.
And because that commitment is defined as "putting in the time" rather
than a commitment about the quality of the emotional relationship, many
people remain "legally" married, but emotionally divorced.
Consequently many children grow up in homes where the parents are not
in love with each other. In some of those homes, the parents barely
tolerate one another. So, many children receive a distorted view of
marriage. In addition to the harm done to the children, those same
situations encourage adultery of the partners as a means of getting
some "temporary relief" (a delusion) from a bad situation.
That type of wrong headed emphases (on the remaining married rather
than upon the quality of the emotional relationship) must be ended.
In the perfect society, wanting to have children is NOT an acceptable
reason for getting married, nor are children an acceptable reason for
staying married. In the perfect society, when the "in love" emotions
change and are no longer felt, then there should still remain "love"
feelings toward one's partner.
Hence, the ending of a marriage partnership, in the perfect society,
while people still like and feel love toward one another, should be
able to be conducted with mutual respect one toward another, and
children should then be able to be enjoyably raised by both former
Remember, in the perfect society, people will deal with each other with
honesty, fairness and interest in each other's well being.
In the perfect society, when our life spans depend upon our remaining
in harmony with God, so that we will periodically be renewed, and when
there is honesty among humans, there is only one reason to begin a
marriage and to remain in a marriage, and that one reason is because
two people are "in love" with each other.
One of the most damaging "twisted" concepts that are promoted in our
present society, is the concept of Forgiveness. The "twisted" current
concept seems to wrongly imply that after "forgiveness" all is well.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In order to fully understand
what "forgiveness" really is, we will briefly review what "forgiveness"
First, "forgiveness" does NOT change the past. Whatever was done, is
done, will remain done, and will NOT be changed. Second, "forgiveness"
does NOT change the memory of the person giving the "forgiveness".
Third, "forgiveness" does NOT mean no consequences for whatever was
done, in fact, "forgiveness" does NOT "wipe the slate clean". Lastly,
"forgiveness" does NOT mean that it will be easy from then on.
All that "forgiveness" is, in a very simple term, is CONTINUANCE. Yes,
"forgiveness" is an opportunity to continue in a relationship.
For those readers who accept the Jewish/ Christian Bible, they should
review the story of God with the Israelites. That story clearly
reveals that "forgiveness" was simply an opportunity for continuance in
the relationship, between God and themselves, which was damaged by the
wrong behavior of the Israelites.
The Israelites had immediate consequences that they received because of
their wrong behavior, and they were also "on probation" to determine if
they were worthy to remain in such a remarkable relationship.
That wrong "twisted" current concept of "forgiveness" actually promotes
wrong behavior by distorting the reality of what forgiveness truly is.
Thus, many relationships are irreparably harmed by people who then
further harm the other party by expecting the injured partner to act as
if nothing happened.
But something **DID** happen, and that something **DID** damage the
relationship, and whether the relationship will survive the damage is
an issue in doubt. So, "forgiveness" is merely a decision on the part
of an injured partner to continue in a relationship, in order to allow
the perpetrator of the damage an opportunity to rectify his/her harm.
When people are aware of the potential devastating results of their
wrong behavior, they might then rethink their behavior *before* they
put their relationship into such jeopardy. "Forgiveness" is much
better, IF it is allowed to be left unused on the shelf!
IF you can't "do the time", then "don't do the crime", is NOT correct
when applied to relationships. The correct adage is "Don't do the
crime" period, then you will not need "forgiveness".
***MORE ABOUT PERFECT SOCIETY RELATIONSHIPS***
Even in our present predatory society, humans usually do not go to bed
one evening with "in-love" emotions and wake up the next morning with
those "in-love" emotions gone.
In other words, usually the changing of "in-love" feelings is a process
which takes place over a period of time. So it will also be in the
But, in the perfect society, when partners are interacting honestly,
they will share their feelings so that each partner will be attuned to
the current state of the emotions of the other. Consequently each
partner can endeavor to take steps that will increase the possibility
for rekindling those "in-love" emotions.
Why would "in-love" emotions change?
Because, in the perfect society, we humans will continue to grow
mentally and emotionally which means that our interests may change,
thus two people who once had much in common, might find, as they
experience a partnership with each other, that they are growing apart
In the perfect society, former spouses could remarry if they find that
they again have in-love emotions toward each other. In other words,
there would be no society restriction upon them.
In the perfect society, any adult male and any adult female are free to
establish a marriage partnership without any restrictions from society
as to which individual they can choose as a partner.
However, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that former marriage
partners would decide to re-establish another marriage relationship.
But, if they did, they would be treated, by God and by other humans,
just like any other newly married couple (that female's virginity would
also be renewed by God for that new marriage).
***SEX OR LOVEMAKING***
Someone could suggest that in the "olden days" the custom for human
females being sexual with one partner only was necessary in order that
the father of a pregnancy might be positively identified.
For if that premise is accepted it would thus follow that since we now
have the technology to determine parentage, then a "one partner only"
morality for females is outdated, and it could now be eliminated, so
that females could have as many sexual partners as they choose to.
.. Sometime in the late 1980's, I read a magazine (Omni??) article that
.. had to do with research on human blood. It reported that, in
.. certain hospitals, after WWII, there was a project whereby blood was
.. taken from newborn children, their mother and their father, and it
.. was stated that an unexpected side result of the research was that
.. 10% of those men who were listed as the father of the child, could
.. not have been the child's biological father.
.. So, even back in the 1940's and 1950's it was possible to determine
.. non parentage, but it usually was not widely practiced. However, my
.. point is this, IF those research figures were representative of the
.. total population of the U.S., then a whole lot of children in the
.. U.S. were raised by men parents other than their biological fathers.
The further point is this: Determining fatherhood has never really been
the reason for promoting "female" monogamy. And, that "many partners"
argument is basically bigoted at its core, because it suggests that
there should be a difference between males and females in decision
making about sex, when there really should not be a difference.
WHY THERE SHOULD BE ONLY ONE PARTNER AT ONE TIME:
Sex without love WILL produce a short term "excitement", just as eating
cotton candy will produce a pleasurable short term "food" sensation.
However, just as humans can not live by consuming cotton candy for
sustenance, so too we can not successfully live by pursuing short term
Sexual "lovemaking" by a male and a female who are "in love" with each
other produces emotional sustenance that lingers and lingers rendering
"lovemaking" an all-day every-day experience in which looks, touches,
hugs, hand holding, soft words, warm feelings, and soothing thoughts
are all a part of the whole, that is called "lovemaking".
Sex, by contrast, is so shallow, so fleeting, so without the true
nourishment that we humans could thrive on, that there simply is no
comparison to the real human "lovemaking".
Although sex and lovemaking may both produce the physical "climax", the
intensity and duration and stimulation of lovemaking is so much more
than that reached with just sex, that sex WITHOUT "in love" love, is
only a little beyond masturbation which will also produce a physical
"climax", but not the emotional sustenance that we humans crave.
In fact, sometimes people "in love" will view the physical "climax" as
merely an interruption in their ongoing physical love relationship, and
they simply will continue on past the "climax". In "lovemaking" it is
the doing, not the "climax", that is the ultimate pleasure objective.
In the perfect society, human females AND males will both be faithful
to one with one relationships, not in order to tell whose children are
whose, but in order to experience the profound higher enjoyment that
being "in love" will produce for both males and females.
In this present predatory society, there are many humans, male and
female, who concentrate upon, and pursue, sexual "excitement" and thus
they lose the capability of being "in love" with a partner. They are
short-changing themselves, but often they are too emotionally deadened
to recognize just how much they are missing out on, and "Why".
Although many of them do go through the motions of trying to get what
they need by getting married, they simply do not know how to commit
themselves to a relationship and they also do not experience "in love"
emotions. So, they do not get the emotional nourishment that they
crave. It is sad that they have chosen a course of sexual activity
which steals from themselves that which they so greatly need.
On the other hand, the people in the perfect society, will choose to be
honest to **themselves** and to pursue that to which they are entitled
to, (which is the full emotional partnering and lovemaking enjoyment
that "in love" relationships bring), NOT because a "moral code" or
a "society code" says that they should, but because of their own
enlightened self interest and experience which tells them that it is,
by far, the best choice for them to make for themselves.
The "in love" people of the perfect society will choose the complete
nourishment of emotional fulfillment instead of the quickly gone, non
nourishing "cotton candy" of sexual "excitement" (also called lust).
Their ultimate romantic goal will be to experience the enjoyment of
sharing their physical and emotional love with each other, instead of
simply seeking to satisfy their bodily urges.
People receiving physical renewal! Females having their virginity
restored! Gender discontented adults getting their genders changed!
The reasonable reader will have to admit that earth humans in the
perfect society will have a relationship with God that produces
practical benefits within their human lives. And those practical
benefits will be widespread AND easy to document.
It will be just about impossible for anyone, in the perfect society, to
doubt the existence of God.