12: Woman is not in the image  of man, it is quite possible that man and woman are in the image of Man.

Officer: This throws into question whether the Adam before Eve’s birth is the same as the Adam after Eve’s birth as the Christians believe from their book.

12: So then, this primordial Adam, where is he? Was he obliterated by what happened to him?

Officer: Maybe, he is responsible for that inveterate – recidivist, in fact – attraction that exists between man and woman.

12: It’s plausible.

Officer: Whether it’s sexual, we do not know.

12: Yeah, considering we have gay people to add.

Officer: Maybe, the sexual tension between man and woman is a different sexual tension than the coital type that science recognizes.

12: Yeah, perhaps, it is a tension of/between sexes rather than a sexual tension. That seems to solve our problem.

Officer: But, what is the composition of this tension? How does it work? What drives it?

12: What is the difference between sexual attraction and attraction between sexes?

Officer: You know there’s the concept of sex from a deep connection as opposed to lustful sex.

12: But, that does not rule out that gays can have such a deep connection. If that can’t be ruled out, then it brings into question our propositions like “it’s sexual” like we said and the primordial division being into man and woman aas we know them.

Officer: We still haven’t answered the question of whether sexual attraction is different from attraction between sexes, you know.

12: Let’s continue with what I just said for now, my man. It is either that it is not sexual so that the normal interpretation of the myth of the Ancients is maintained or we throw our understanding out and admit that man and woman were metaphors for something more fundamental to humans or we can reject their myth altogether with the idea that they understood it same as us.

Officer: If we are to take it that they understood it same as us, it is either that they introjected what they saw outside onto something more fundamental to the idea or it came naturally to them. I am concerned with saving this myth because it is too primordial to be worthless, it has to have some psychological value, if anything. The primordial people should have been expressing something from deep in them, I want to see it as a poetry.

But then, if we say that we have to question why they chose the man and woman representation. This presupposes that they had a choice between gay and hetero.

12: There can be two reasons, as I see. Either that it was easier since the opposition is so clear for understanding’s sake or it was due to the ratio of hetero to gay (presupposes that hetero was more than gay) or there were no gays at all at the time or they naturally felt that the gay wasn’t right. Okay, I have outlined four, the others came as I talked.

Officer: Our best solution, if we want to maintain everything, is to maintain that it was a poetry that was expressed in a certain way for easier understanding.

12: I’m still interested in the questions we have generated. I suppose you are too. Especial to me are the questions: what is the difference between sexual attraction and attraction between sexes? Is attraction between sexes still sexual and for that matter, sexual attraction being a broader specimen? Because, we have that evidence of attraction between sexes from everyday life regardless of sexual attraction.

Officer: It could even be that it is both sexual and non-sexual at the same time, that is, from different perspectives.

One worthwhile psychological experiment will be: will sex between a gay man and gay woman be different from an all-gay coitus?

12: A scientific anthropologist once spoke about the existence of homosexuality among monkeys thus legitimizing it as natural but that tells us nothing, no explanation. Even though we use a scientific method here, such thinking [as the scientific anthropologist’s] tells us nothing about homosexuality contra heterosexuality psychologically and/or philosophically. It merely tells us it is a possible natural phenomenon.

Officer: It’s interesting how we go about these discussions; we start with one thing and end with another altogether as a topic.

12: (smiles) Yeah, we’re just going, man.