I can't comment! So here are my comments...

For incomprehensible reasons - I cannot at present comment on my own blog!

So, here (for the time being) is what would have been a comment in reply to Henry, for the post below:

@as - I mean the relationship between the sexes, as they believe it ought to be.

@Henry - Interesting comment - especially the Rhinegold reference. 

By my understanding, the false model of the post-sixties sexual revolution wrt men and women, is opposed in the public arena by another false model from patriarchal and traditional religions - which regard women as a sub-man. 

As usual, both of the common and mainstream options are false, and have shown their major flaws over the past 200-plus years. 

Again as usual, we are left in the position of being individual men (or women) who must work out the right answer - from trial and error, experience and learning - with another individual woman (or man) - based on mutual love and mutual respect. 

Standard templates or blueprints for what men and women are supposed to be like, how supposed to behave, and what supposed to do - are net-harmful to this quest - as of here-and-now (even though some are less harmful than others). 

What's more they are bad for the soul. 

(Most "traditional" Christians who bang-on so relentlessly about sexual relationships; sound to me as if they would genuinely be much happier as Jews or Muslims -- also because of their conviction of the Monotheistic "Omni-God", to whom obedience and submission are primarily required. And indeed, that is where they may well gravitate... sooner or later. For them, women have no necessary or eternal theological function - only a temporary and biological job in this mortal life. When "trad Christians" also realize that (their idea of) Jesus has no necessary function in their theology - then they will recognize that they have picked the wrong religion for their bottom-line ineradicable convictions.)