Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: Prescriptions and Possibilities

Hello All,

Inspired by this thread: "http://astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?p=195071#post195071", Arian Maverick and I decided it would be a fun idea for the forum to have a place to talk about sex, gender, and sexuality, without diverging from any other topics on hand.

While many people here and everywhere have their thoughts and feelings about these topics, be them rooted in tradition, belief, or experience, exploration of these topics, at the very least from a philosophical perspective, benefits all of us no matter our position or relationship to said topic.

In college I studied in-depth sex, gender, and sexuality, with the hopes of understanding firstly myself and my own struggle for wholeness, and then with equal importance, the struggle for people as a whole to find true, independent, and fulfilling meaning in their lives.

I come here today with questions and considerations for anyone interested. Whether this thread ever picks up much momentum is inconsequential to me, but I do believe with so much emphasis from all corners of life on sex, gender, and sexuality, including astrology, that we should all take a moment to analyze and objectify this rhetoric which so often becomes dogma.


I'm curious as to how "real" categories of "male" and "female" are.

What is a woman? The body? What if she does not have the requisite parts? What if she does not fulfill the requisite roles? I ask the same question of what it means to be a man.

The division of two sexes begins with the actuality of sexual intercourse, as we are divided between those two separate parts based on their specific reproductive roles. Sex is treated with very delicately, but also very bluntly, in society, and how we deal and talk about it centers around issues of propriety or not. Thus, so does the division of the sexes. It is constructed so as to maintain control and coherence.

I'm particularly curious how one can sound "male" or "female" in terms of writing. This suggests there are differences between the male or female brain. This may or may not be true, but I'm more suspect of their biological grounding, as opposed to being socialized, taught, and rewarded for propriety or punished for impropriety.


How real, though, is this difference?

mod.

Wow, deep question. I feel too young to answer it. A person I have recently got to know has been through quite a lot regarding this. Very... distressing for me, hearing it all. Anyway, I shall follow this for a while. It's a good idea

Hi, Mod, interesting point to bring up. I think the difference between male and female may be in some part in our own heads, and our own desire to fit into the roles society has given us.

The image of male (lazy, partying, sex-crazed, unemotional, beer-over-women) and female (shrill, no fun, touchy-feely, reactionary) that the television machine has given us is not at all or even remotely true. It's true only in the people who have adopted it as regulation. I think television is one of the things that is most toxic to gender relation. It's what keeps men out of touch with their emotional sides because when they start feeling they are labeled as gay, no masculine man can feel. And women can't be independent because they have to dress like barbie and cook like Betty Crocker to be acceptable, and the feminists have been ignored by a lot of women because everyone thinks they want to put urinals in the women's bathroom for equality.

You can see the division happening if you look down the children's toy isles at stores. The boy's isle is all G.I. Joe's with all their cool guns and tanks, and Super Heros. The girl's isle is all Barbie and toy Ovens and cute little make-up kits. I hate that division, it's blinding us. We're all effected by it to some extent, by that stereotyping. Both genders have been royally *******. But that social brainwashing isn't really what this thread is about...

Ultimately I think the genders have a lot to teach each other, but the gap is widening every day.

Sexual brainwashing is even worse. People are taught that sex is an evil thing and then they are shown it constantly as an appeal to our depraved minds. It's like dog training, put a steak in the middle of the floor and strike him if he goes for it. Sexual restraints make us worse. Instead of freedom and open expression of our sexuality we are taught that it is something that should be withheld, and bottling it up only intensifies the desire, it makes perverts and rapists. The child getting beaten for masturbating is the one who will later be filled with sexual frustrations.

And then pornography came along to give release to our sexual desires, and turned us on to all kinds of crazy stuff. Between closed-minded childhoods and pornographic sex overload we're getting a barrage of mixed messages that's making people crazy. I just wish it wasn't thought of as such a big deal.

P.S. Was the word s-c-r-e-w-e-d just blotted out on this forum, or is that just my computer?

A very interesting thread. Are men or women considered that because of their bodies or their gender roles to be male or female, I really dont know what do say about that. Consider if you removed what is supposedly masculine and feminine behaviour and roles and just let people be what they be and do what they do what would happen? Men biologically have more testosterone and a side effect of that is anger, which was thought to be the one "permissable" emotion that men could feel (when it was not expected to be masculing to show emotion). Women have more estrogen which is different, give generally the more nurturing quality. The boys world (as one book called it, I think) is filled with violence and mistrust (this is not my experience but I know it is still prevalent). I think fear of bullying and isolation keeps people in their gender roles but when are you going to have the courage to call the bluff and find out that other people are only concerned with what every-one thinks of them.

The conditioning of the past is hard to get rid of. In the previous 500 years or so the double standard ruled and a kind of gender war was happening. Men wanted sex without strings attached and women wanted commitment, and some people today still think like that. Also back then it was dangerous for women who lose their virginity before marrage because parents sort of thought that they owned their daughters sexuality (I have seen this from time to time even today) and men thought that they could take something that they "owned", which added to the double standard, and of course religeon with its sexually repressive views only helped this. All of that stuff happening seems to be some kind of egotistical power trip game due to whoever's at the top and has power is some kind of control freak. Women were also expected back then to be virgens when they were married, and with guys it diden't matter, so again the double standard.

Anyways this is what I think based on what I know but I am not an expert on history.

P.S Earth Sign I want to thank you for your truthful response, sometimes I think all fear regarding these kinds of things is just an illusion and you have to call the bluff and get throught the B.S. (fear is not bad entirely as it will stop you from stepping in front if a speeding train)

Also I think that in terms of modern societry "male" and "female" are just concepts with connections to them regarding genitals, secondary sex characteristics, and gender roles, if you could remove theses connections what would the world be like?

Something else that is worth mentioning is that in the Liz Green book that I have she talks about how when a man feel incompetent or impotent they sexual energy has a tendency to turn inwards and this is what give rise to that energy manifesting as a "pervert" (although the term pervert seem like a loosly used term that coveres alot of thing), and women that have negative aspects to their mars this can attract these kind of men into their lives (in connection to what I was saying before).

Those are good questions. I tend to think that woman or man are terms to explain our body differences but still I wouldn't go preaching about it to a man who identifys himself as female if he says so then i'll respect it. I think its kinda stupid to give personal qualities or flaws for that matter, a gender. Like being agressive is a male quality I mean why? Why can't a woman be agressive or why can't a guy be passive? For the longest time I resented being a girl because I thought that my general personality and traits would have been accepted better if I were a guy. To some some point it was truth too. If I were a guy then ppl around me would say i was a shining exemple of masculinity but bcos im a girl, ha! No! I'm just a really evil disruption to the status quo. This pisses me off. We shouldn't be defined by a stereotype.

For sexuality, I could go around and point the finger at religion for its repressive nature towards it, but not all of them do this. In fact there are ones that encourage sexuality. But in general its frowned as being something sinful and dirty. Again I think, why?

I've always thought that genders were converging in this modern age, and that people are more androgynous than they used to be.

I think 'sex' is a completely biological question. Someone is, or is not ,a male or female.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...riton_is_first_legally_genderless_person.html

Gender I think of as a cultural concept. But it uses the terminology of male and female, and man and woman. So it is easy to confuse the two, and associate a 'male' gender concept to literally being,, biologically, a male. And that makes sense because it was probably noticed that certain traits were more common among biological males than females and vice versa. So these were labelled as masculine and feminine.

The male brain IS different to the female brain, and hormones DO yield substantial differences in character. So I also think it is perfectly acceptable to associate certain traits with a sex. And it is more than mere observance, there are actual reasons for it too. So that is another jump from sex to gender. I think an interesting question in this regard is to what extent gender characteristics vary from culture to culture- does any culture perceive women to be aggressive? It would be cool if there was, it might demonstrate that the link between sex and gender is much harder to understand.

I guess the big jump is when all of this stops being descriptive, and becomes prescriptive. Such that as Aruilly says, some traits are more accepted in a guy than they would be in a girl.

When a norm develops people are always curious when things are different from it. I would be!

So if I met a woman who was very aggressive, I would think that 1) most females are not that aggressive, 2) males have hormones and a brain structure that makes them more aggressive, so 3) there must be a reason why this woman is more aggressive.
I would expect her, (or stereotype her (!)) to be less aggressive.

There is a jump from that to the statement that she ought (in a socially prescriptive sense) to be less aggressive. And that her aggressiveness is not acceptable... because she is a woman. And I don't know what I think about this- I guess I don't think that it is good to make that jump but its so understandable to see why people do.

I mean if I was a man, (which I am) and I had a very masculine brain (which I don't), I probably would find aggression in a female a big turn off (unless I was really really masculine and we got on in an intellectual sense, in which case maybe its a turn on?). And I wouldn't blame the man for that, it's how he's built. It's his natural inclination.

So I think that is at least a strong part of how people make the jumps from all of the issues I've outlined.

Its not a total explanation, or even an argument for or against anything. I think I'm just saying that I can understand where a lot of people are coming from on these issues. Just like I completely understand and sympathise with the points already made in this thread.

As a man, I have quite a feminine brain. I'm not aggressive. I don't have many masculine traits. And many women do not find this attractive. Many people find it strange. But I totally understand where they're coming from. And I'm also curious- why am I the way I am?

Most of the people I know are not really very masculine or feminine, we're all quite androgynous. I think the humanity of us links us together far more meaningfully than our sex or gender.

I don't want to change my personality. But deep down I think that scientifically, it is probably possible, and one day we might have the technology to make somebody more or less masculine or feminine, biologically, and to an extent culturally (to the extent that cultural gender is related to physiology and bio-chemical make up.) Should we change people's sex/ gender? Probably not without their consent!

But if they so choose, would we think of them as victims of society? Pressurised into conforming and changing themselves to fit? Might our answer change if a feminine or androgynous man "chose" to become more masculine ("a victim to machismo"), or chose to be a women ("couldn't reconcile being feminine with biologically being a man- he's too two dimensional")? Or what if a very masculine or feminine person chose to be less masculine or feminine if people tended to look down on them, thinking they were misogynistic or too feminine, that their personality hadn't developed enough for them to have an identity independant of their gender. Might we think of their choice to be more androgynous more positively?

Even if such technology did exist would any such change be successful? What if someone post procedure then felt uncomfortable in their new selves... does this mean that deep down you can't change who you are, or does it mean (as I might suspect, thinking that science rules) that psychologically, they had to an extent accepted who they were, and their personality is having difficulty adjusting to what it now is. And no conscious brain handles change well, especially fundamental ones, so it would perfectly understandable for the brain to think 'WTF what just happened to me".

Anyway, these are my thoughts. Having read through what I just typed, I think that it's often a no-win situation.

Hello Everyone,


Thanks for the all the great responses. So cool.

Sundancekid, the belief that people are ONE sex or the OTHER is dogma and rhetoric, and all too common. A significant portion of babies born have androgynous gentailia, and many parents are forced to put children under the knife so as to "fix" this natural anomaly. We force people into the rigid dualism. There are over 15 known hormonal states which can lead to all sorts of intersexuality. A very popular one is androgen insensitivity syndryome, in which an XY individual (chromosomal male) is completely insensitive to any androgens in their system, and thus develops the "ideal super-model female form." Namely, large breasts and small, child-like hips, with absolutely no extraneous body hair. Many of these people are in fact models. One is Jamie Lee Curtis, the famous actor. One sex or the other? I don't think so. We've developed this model of two sexes for control and coherence. Even in nature they don't exist, so "biology," is something we've created and we mass produce, and we reproduce to keep our world organized and to justify our behaviors. Categories of "masculine" and "feminine," are based on this model, a model which we created based roughly on blurried details about about our bodies. What we've created is one gender or the other. One needs to look or act feminine or masculine based on what we expect about their body.

Aruilly- I wouldn't call sexuality repressed. In fact, I would say that it is EVERYWHERE! The Victorian Era, the supposed era of repression, people sought out the sexual in everything, so as to then hide it. If you can't even show an ankle, you're always going to be thinking about how you can't show that ankle, and then implicitly, why you can't be showing that ankle. Many religious rituals, such as a baptism, or a sprinkling with holy water, or even the shape of a church, are very sexual, very female genital based. The creation of sexuality (this concept did not exist until the late 1800s) comes from this general mentality-- to control. Sexuality is representative of our wild inner natures (especially for women, but really just men projecting), and must be controlled because it could (and is) leaking out just about anywhere and everywhere.


JayM- your history is a bit off, and your interpretation of said history, so I'm just going to point out that it is more like 5000 years that women have been "opressed" (but then again, so have men, even if by their own doing). Women as virgins were considered valuable assets to a family in need, because she untouched and therefore very fertile, literally like a good place to plant crops and make a lot of money. The connection to the male control and dominance of her sexuality happens much later, with the rise of industrialism and the middle class and the need for control within the family and not through explicit social structure such as royalty. Thanks for bringing this up though, very important to think about I believe.

mod.

Very interesting post indeed. In my everyday work I encounter this questions of sex, gender, sexuality... I work with a group who are gender / sexuality / mentally / emotionally devirsified, to say the least.

I have noticed that the majority of my clients have either stuggled with mental health issues, gender issues, sexuality issues along with a large array of stigma that society places on them. Daily I encounter open conversations about transgender, homosexulaity, mental illness and social phobia. One would think that the outside world was full of judgements and misrepresentaions...and it is!

I run a peer mentored art studio and the clientel are so diversified and unique that they find it extremely difficult to fit into 'social norms' (used lightly) however, in the studio it is a safe environment free of these judgements they find outside... When conversations begin, usually there is no direction as to where they will go...however, everyday I learn something new...what I have come to realize is that... our world view has to change. It is our judgements, assumptions and most of all our preceptions that cause us to look through a filter and view anyone as being different. Our equality is that we are human and whatever else goes with that package makes us unique and this uniqueness should be embraced.

I look forward to reading more responses as everyone has great views and insights into this topic. It is informative and straight to the point, which is truly the only way to bring a new level of consiousness to society.

Modcleopatra, thanks for starting such an informative post...

You're welcome Canaqua, and thanks for talking so informatively and openly about your own experiences with this topic.

You raise an interesting point, about all of us being of the same source- that source being that we are all human, and that ultimately, our differences are not truly differences, but social constructed categories which appear, based on this construction, to be oppositional or similar, harmonious or inharmonious.

I suppose now would be a good time for me to mention that just because something is a social construction, does not deem it to be ultimately inconsequential or unimportant, nor should we throw these categories out because they appear to divide us and prevent us from a social utopia. People's experiences, both in terms of historical group experience, collective conscious and unconscious attitudes, and daily present experience, center around these categories. I would not throw out the concept of "race" simply because science has proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that race does not exist on the level of DNA. It does exist on a macro level, if only because we've attributed importance and meaning to it. By throwing out this category, we throw out eons of history surrounding oppression that comes along with it. Race matters.

The same goes for the sex, as well as gender. We have created these categories, these categories have huge histories, experiences, and futures, and thus, we cannot abandon them.

Many people argue that sex is natural, that we as a species divide between these two because of the biological importance and significance of reproduction. But we do not use sex, nor is sex spoken of, in this way. Sex division is part of our culture, and we use it to create culture. As humans we are NOT divisible from culture. If we take the Bible for example, the story of Adam and Eve does not begin with these two sexes having known that they are reproductive beings designed to be together with one another in a sexual way. They might as well be brother and sister in terms of their relationship. They learn this, and then begin to act in supposed accordance with this reality. Sexual difference is given meaning, and from there notions of gender and sexuality are created. The three feed one another, but are creations to begin with.

Culture arises from these differences, or supposed differences. We glamorize the differences in the sexes, build them up into these huge constructions and meanings so as to produce meaning in our lives. They become outlets for our animal drives which we face, as conscious beings, as obstacles or qualities we must control and understand.

In reality, male and female are not that different. In utero, all fetuses begin as female, and either remain as such, or develop into male, much LATER from when the brain actually begins to develop. Male in a way, is an extension of female.


Glad people like this thread...

mod.

This article here talks about why women are attracted to "bad boys" due to society wanted women to be the "good girl"

http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/family-relationships/blog/joseyvogels/6490/why-women-like-bad-boys

Its somewhat about dating but it touches down on it.

Ahhh, it is true according to Urie Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory on sociocultural view of development, their are many cultures and subcultures all stemming from the microsystem of where one lives and grows to where they learn through the mesosystem which goes further to the exosystem where one becomes culturally divideds... you get what I mean...

Indeed there are cultures, sex, gender, identities, social norms, race, religion, minorities, ages,... you name it... there is a catagory for all. And it is and has been eveident for thousands of years that these cultures will continue and divide and create more cultures.... however, my view is that humanity has no boundaries. Yes, I hold differences of opinion and I have days when I'd rather not have to deal with the politics of it all... but life goes on and then I take a nap and wake up in a better mood - and try to remember where I started.

There are days that I sit in the studio and smile at the little subculture I have created where all of the like minded people can come together and express themselves in a creative selfexpressive manner.

See.... that in and of its self proves I am human, and I too can filter what I choose to filter and allow what I choose to allow. As I said, I am as human as the rest.

As Ralph Waldo Emmerson once wrote, "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

Perhaps I am an !!!!

Dear Canaqua,

Let it be known I used the term "alien" and our media portrayal of aliens, as well as our social construction of what an alien means, for a thesis I did regarding my travels in Europe and a transnational exploration of gender. I said we were all aliens, and that our cultural attitudes towards these "little green men," and our portrayal of such, reflected our own alienation from the categories we seek to create as means of self-understanding. In other words, we are afraid of our own inner aliens- that which is foreign.

So perhaps, you are simply embracing your own inner alien!

mod.

Let it be known... you found my secret! Yes, we all have an alian inside of us that no one truely gets to know. Everyday something new comes forward and you say... What the heck is that? And what did you do to my master? LOL Seriously though... isn't self awareness what we all strive to explore, discover and master in this life time? We all come with preconceptions... which I mean literally.... pre - conception... we choose all of these gifts and challenges, our parents, the life we want to master. Then we enter the womb and forget everything we have choosen, then we are born into this world were we have to learn it all over again. It's like a game of trouble... see who gets sent back first. So our mother ship has already landed, it's up to us when we want to catch up with it, board it and decend to human form.

"We are all spiritual beings living a human life" Eckhart Tole

Me tinks the truth will be revealed!!!!

Canaqua


I suppose I'm more interested though, in uncovering what motivates to divide ourselves, and to put so much into these categories. What are they for us? Sources of comfort, practicality, an exercise in the conscious mind?

If we recognize such categories inhibit and limit us, how useful are they in terms of actually understanding ourselves? Or are such limits a point to freedom?

Do we want freedom from sex, gender, sexuality? Some of us have great pride in these, in who we are in relationship to these, in what being a part of one of these, has done for us?


BUT AGAIN, how real are these categories?
Thoughts out there?

mod

I can't speak for anyone else, only myself... I believe the motivation comes from the areas of your life that you need to heal. Perhaps the subconscious mind leads you to a category/subculture/group for some unknown reason and through this connection you are able to work to complete your karma. How would one ever complete their karma is they were to partake in a great mass of people? How would you find soul mates, those who push you to be the best you, or not, where would you learn the lessons you are meant to learn in this incarnation? How could you reach for the north node if you were to contunue to fall back on your past knowledge of the south node... Research, perhaps that is all we are doing?

Ahhh! I see a pattern here... I seem to have more questions than answers! Well, that's fantastic... at least I get to stay around long enough to explore and find some answers... after all, if I had all the answers, thy would be done!

The possibilites are endless.....

Mod, what motivates the division I think may have to do with what our ego identifies with, do we identify with being a man or women due to a sense of belonging, mars energy does have alot of ego in it, or it could be that we want to protect a system that we think we are already apart of or ahead in.

I like this hot topic because I think about this a lot too. This gives a very interesting discourse to the field of astrology considering the ideas of feminine and masculine energies and sexuality in astrology (traditional and modern). When I first became interested in astrology, I noticed that the planets which denote sexual attraction (venus and mars) do not cater to the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community. There are LGBT astrologers out there, but I feel like, with all the re-conceptualizing that is necessary in any field of study as human consciousness expands... I guess, we need to start rethinking sex and gender in general and in astrology (not that I'm linking that to the meanings of those two planets per se).

So it's my understanding that sex denotes biological parts, while gender is SOCIALLY constructed (like race). Many of us have just stated that gender is "in our heads" and I agree. Anthropologists are able to make the claim that gender is socially constructed because, while we know that humans world-wide have historically given importance to gender distinction and sexual relationships, different cultures have different "rules" for what is masculine and what is feminine.

Many feminists (I mean real feminists now) have theories about the basis of the our ideas of gender roles. For instance, social theorist Nancy Holmstrom says "different behavioral propensities thought by many to be biologically based, disappear given certain social conditions.”

Personally, I think that we are meant to integrate apparent opposites, to find the underlying unity in all things. I'm about to sound all eastern religion, but this is indeed a world-wide non-religious concept. You can call it spiritual, it's certainly about transcendence. Seems to me, we are meant to transcend duality (male vs. female), not prescribe to constructed roles based on opposites. I'm not saying we should all be androgynous, no. Like my homegirl Virginia Woolf, I think women and men have different creative abilities, but we don't understand how to integrate the masculine and feminine parts that exist in ourselves and in everyone's psyches.

Interesting, Mod, that you mentioned you were studying this topic while on your search for "wholeness."

Originally posted by Modcleopatra:
I'm particularly curious how one can sound "male" or "female" in terms of writing. This suggests there are differences between the male or female brain.

Click to expand...

Certainly the right brain can be considered feminine and the left brain masculine. But obviously we all have both and it's clear that men are just as likely to be dominant on the right side and vice versa. Funny enough, our world on the whole is still struggling with female oppression and most societies completely invalidate the right side of the brain.

Originally posted Aruilly:
I thought that my general personality and traits would have been accepted better if I were a guy. To some some point it was truth too. If I were a guy then ppl around me would say i was a shining exemple of masculinity but bcos im a girl, ha! No! I'm just a really evil disruption to the status quo. This pisses me off. We shouldn't be defined by a stereotype.

Click to expand...

I hear that! I feel the same way. I'm not aggressive, but I'm definitely not a "girly girl." Stereotypes are crippling to human understanding.

For sexuality, I could go around and point the finger at religion for its repressive nature towards it,

Click to expand...

Haha me too and patriarchal ideology (which is the deal with western religions) and other institutions of social control that need to die.

@ Mod
I disagree with your observation about repression. My opinion is that the reason sex was everywhere in the Victorian Era was because of the thwarting of natural sexual expression. Sort of like the restriction from alcohol during the prohibition era. There were more speakeasies in the city of NY during the prohibition than there are bars now. There are thousands of bars in NY now and I think the city is more populous now.

Originally posted by Sundancekid:
The male brain IS different to the female brain, and hormones DO yield substantial differences in character.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... how is this exactly? Where is the evidence I mean.

@Bubbletree:

re: sexual repression and the Victorian Era.

During this time we developed the "Science of Sex," namely, psychoanalysis. Sex wasn't repressed, it was rigorously controlled for the first time outside of religion. It became a practice in science, hence the issue of purity. Do be sure to check out literature from the time period, such as "The Awakening," as well as acclaimed and accepted historian, philosopher, and critical theorist, Michel Foucault, particularly his book, "The History of Sexuality." Here he points out how what appears to be sexual repression during the Victorian Era, would be inaccurate, as everything became highly sexual as people tried to control it. Sure, there weren't gay bars, but people were so obsessed with sex during that time, that the conception of homosexuality in the modern sense, was actually created. (There has been recordings of homosexual acts all through history, but they were considered acts and not an inherent quality of a person.)


@EJ53

EJ, you make a good point towards something else I want to talk about. People who have given birth are VERY different than people who have not. Children react uniquely to their birth mothers in this way. The capacity to see the father as a loving and nurturing parent comes is a a more complex psychological issue, happening a bit later in the child's development. In terms of imprinting however, a child will always feel a strong, reassuring, nurturing sensation from the body which gave birth to it-- it is MUCH MORE visceral than ANY other sensation. The woman who has given birth is absolutely different from all others, both men and women, who have not experienced this. But not all women are mothers feel this way in response to their children (their body invariably treated the fetus as a trashcan), and some feel it to only one child rather than all their children. The Maternal Instinct as a concept is reflective of lining women up with an animalistic, primitive nature, outside of language and culture. "It simply is their instinct." Why? Because Men don't give birth and the theory goes they might be a little jealous. (sources: Horney, Irigaray, Kristeva)

Lastly, to all, I keep mentioning that SEXUAL DIFFERENCE AS BIOLOGY is just as constructed as gender...


more later....

mod.