Sexual schism begins when the male child is taught to identify exclusively with the father image, and the female child with the mother image. For male children, this includes being taught how to develop into mature men who can provide for their families and take on the male gender role. Male children are taught, within our society that, there are particular traits that should be followed, however, we have seen a misinterpretation of these traditional traits that are associated with being male. Luckily modern society is looking to redirect and redefine those traits to their original standing – see more at Alpha-Male-Traits. Although we are looking to right these wrongs we have to look at any issues that have come from these expectations.

Here we have a guilt insidiously incorporated into the growth process.

Children of either sex identify quite naturally with both parents, and any enforced method of exclusively directing the child to such a single identification is limiting. Under such conditions, feelings of guilt immediately begin to arise whenever such a child feels natural affiliations toward the other parent.

The stronger those natural inclinations are, the more the child is directed to ignore them in our society, since certain characteristics, are considered exclusively male or female. The child is also coerced into ignoring or denying those portions of the personality the correspond with the sex it is being taught it cannot identify with. This squeezing of personality into a sexual mold begins early, then. Continuing guilt is generated because the child knows unerringly that its own reality transcends such simple orientation.

The more able the child is to force such an artification, the greater its feelings of inner rebellion. The lack of a “suitable” father or mother image has “saved” more children than it has hurt. The psyche, with its great gifts, always feels thwarted and attempts to take countering measures. Our schools further continue the process, however, so that the areas of curiosity and learning become separated for males and females. The “she” within the male does indeed represent portions of his personality that are being unexpressed– not because of any natural predominance of mental or emotional characteristics over others, but because of artificial specializations. The same applies to the “male” within the female. We have accepted this version od personhood, in line with our ideas about the nature of consciousness. Those ideas are changing, and as they do the species must accept its true personhood. As this happens, our understanding will allow us to glimpse the nature of the reality of the gods we have recognized through the ages. We will no longer need to clothe them in limited sexual guises.

Our religious concepts will change considerable, and the images associated with them. Religion and government have has as uneasy alliance. Males ruled both (they still do), and yet those leading religious organizations at least recognized their intuitive base. They constantly tired to manipulate religion’s substructure in the same acceptable male ways that government leaders always use to inhibit and use the emotions.

Hersey was considered female and subversive because it could threaten to destroy the framework set about the acceptable expression of religious fervor. The female elements in the Church were always considered suspect, and in the early times of Christianity there was some concern lest the Virgin become a goddess. There were offshoots of Christianity that did not survive, in which this was the case. Parallel developments in religion ad government always echo the state of consciousness and its purposes. “Pagan” Practices, giving far more leeway to sexual identification and expression, continued well into the 16th century, and the so-called occult underground heretical teachings tried to encourage the development of personal intuition.

Any true psychic development of personality, however, is bound to lead to an understanding of the nature of the psyche that is far too large for any such confusion of basic identity with sexuality. The concept of reincarnation itself clearly shows the change of sexual orientation, even while it is also expressed through a given sexual stance. To a good extent, sexual beliefs are responsible for the blocking-out of reincarnational awareness. Such “memory” would necessarily acquaint us with experiences most difficult to correlate with our current sexual roles. Those other-sex existences are present to the psyche unconsciously. They are a portion of our personality. In so specifically identifying with our sex, therefore, we also inhibit memories that might limit or destroy that identification.