Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26248252-20150418023438/@comment-26394655-20150528180131

Hublijhar wrote: Honestly, I never really considered Jasper as having male oriented characteristics. She's just really tuff and kind of like a stereotypical "Viking woman" (by that I mean beefy and supah strong). And just because were on the topic of gender preference, the way I see it: One day all of you meatbags will classify as "it" or "them", you will all be homosexual, and the human race will become extinct because of the lack of meatbag reproduction. Back to the topic at hand, I honestly don't think we NEED a 100% male gem, I just think it would be neat to have one. There's a such thing in history as something of a "viking woman", or in cases of women that fought in wars. However the very act of fighting in war during that time and even still today is referred to something some one in the male gender category will do. It's a negative characteristic in our society for a woman to be "beefy and supah strong" like that of what a man is expected to be.

Your insight about the future and homosexuality makes relatively no sense. One day perhaps more people will be more homosexual,bisexual or pansexual, but there are many factors that will end our race before homosexuality like war or famine. In vitro fertilization also says hi, and in the future I can only imagine it will continue to advance.

And again, we have gems that display the characteristics of the male gender already to an extreme degree. There's no need for a male gem, no matter how neat it may seem.