I hadn't thought of that. I guess social pressure could keep the lesbians
"disapproved of", so that they would be discreet about liaisons, if it
was going to be a problem. Since so many lesbians have children anyway,
they might be able to stand the occasional sex with a man to keep the
cover intact. (Think how annoyed any of them would be if
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
they qualified the for the group that knew where those babies really came
from, and artificial insemination was where it was at anyway!)
I have often wondered about Stavia's mother (sorry, name has slipped me
for the moment) and her relationship with Joshua. I assume it was
(discreetly) sexual as well as loving; likewise Stavia with (sorry, that
name's gone too, Corrig??), father of her daughters, since they were not
alone in their houses. (Which, since house-sharing seemed common, would
provide additional cover for lesbian relationships.) In fact, I would
suspect there might have been a fair number of "closeted" women/servitor
affairs in progress: presumably libido was not turned off between
festivals!
I've also wondered about Minsning, Sylvia's fluttery servitor: maybe he
was so patently unsuited to garrison life that he did not have to
exercise any fortitude to return through the Gate, but was gently ushered
out.
Frances Green
http://gayellowpages.com
On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 08:44:01 -0800 Le Anne Fossmeyer
<lfossmeyer@DATAWORKS.COM> writes:
<snip>
>I think homosexuality and homosexuals had to be excluded in order for
>the society to function at all. It's critical that homosexuality does
>not exist. Imagine the women's country had lesbians. They'd fall in
>love, undoubtedly move in together, and probably not have sex with the
>segregated men. Imagine being the straight girl watching your
>sisters,
>friends or neighbors fall in love and share a loving, physical life
>with
>another. You'd feel a little cheated, wouldn't you? You probably
>wouldn't tolerate it. You'd either leave or challenge the status quo.
>Either way, the society fails to work.
>
>When I first attempted to read this book and got to the discovery that
>homosexuality was consciously "removed" from the gene pool, I threw
>the
>book away. I was pretty intolerant of what I perceived as intolerance.
>=
>) Later I decided to give Tepper the benefit of the doubt and tried
>again. And while I didn't really care for it as a regular story, I
>did
>find it interesting as a morality play of sorts. And I liked the
>comparison of the one society that picks its parents to limit the
>(less
>desirable) diversity of humanity and the society that fails as a
>direct
>result of a lack of diversity in the gene pool. Interesting....
>
>-LeAnne
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:35 PDT