Pink and Blue

I was a bit surprised to see that a California representative used the same term I did when referencing sexuality in an article a week or so ago.  The term was "binary."  He and I are a complete 180° difference in our understanding.  I believe sexuality is binary, as in two sexes.  Everybody is one or the other.  He, on the other hand believes the binary view is so limiting and well he's included his little transgendered grandchild in the photo op.  I'm not sure which gender the child is or feels themselves to be, but at any rate, the representative sees a wide spectrum of identity and terms between male and female.

So much in the headlines as of late about "gender assignment" at birth.  We really all know that isn't the case.  Babies are identified now in utero through sonograms.  Some folks have determined to not know the baby's sex until it's born, but most pregnant ladies only use the binary terms to identify the sex of their unborn baby.  So before birth, the sex is not assigned but recognized and identified, and nurseries are decorated accordingly.  Blue is still standard for boys and pink for girls.  For those who don't find out before the little bundle of joy arrives, yellow continues to be the standard with pink or blue details to be added, upon arrival.

Interestingly enough though, pharmaceutical companies continue to use the the standard color recognition in prescriptions for sexual issues.  Viagra is blue and there is now a pink pill for women for a new diagnosis, hypoactive sexual desire disorder.  The FDA is not exactly sold on this new diagnosis (HSDD) or the medication.  I also found it interesting that the pharmaceutical company that has the patent is called "Sprout," with a logo that includes what appears to be green leaves.  An allusion to natural?  The link is included below.

Please keep in mind several factors, the first one being, our society is redefining "normal sexuality."
Second, this pill, when it passes approval is to be taken daily for the rest of a woman's life.
Of course, this means, the long term potential effects are completely unknown.
The comment is made more than once this pill is for premenopausal women, yet one of the two women being interviewed has been married 40 years.
The information doesn't seem terribly straightforward but seems to be suggesting it's not being taken as seriously as it should because it's not a man's issue.
Then there's the factor that HSDD may or may not be a physiological problem.

What continued to come to mind as I watched the video and listened to the women was the passage in Genesis, that a woman's desire would be for her husband.  Desiring to please one's husband doesn't have to be based on a personal sexual drive, but rather simply in response to his desire.  How can we, as a society, be missing our Creator's design for intimacy by both extremes?  What happened to simply expressing love and shared intimacy between a man and wife?

http://news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-little-pink-pill-and-the-drugs-resubmission-for-fda-approval-031600521.html