{Birth dates [continued (7)] – Great is Diana [continued (3)]}[9th January 1988]

[Redbook4:296-298][19880109:0947g]{Birth dates [continued (7)] – Great is Diana [continued (3)]}[9th January 1988]

19880109.0947

[continued]

The particular point of all this* (and bearing in mind that it should be applied with great caution) is that [Y[X]]** was a Captain in the Women's Royal Army Corps ([W] and I once giggled privately over their magazine, 'The Lioness',*** at [S[X] and Y[X]'s flat) and that her present course involves a career in a 'Men's' world assisted by a group of career women whose pride seems to be to despise all men for (e.g.) inefficiency, i.e. for lacking the 'male'**** qualities!

If sexuality is basically an across-the-circle relationship of opposites, it is quite clear that there would on the face of it be little place for sexual or marital relationship with men, for Dianas.# But Time will tell: it is an open question whether or to what extent [Y[X] is really a Diana, or whether (or how much) her upbringing and subsequent life and training have adapted her to this type.

#*

*[See last previous entries, [Redbook4:296][19880109:0947d]{Birth dates [continued (4)] – A Gemini}[9th January 1988] ff.]

**[Ref [Redbook4:296][19880109:0947d]{Birth dates [continued (4)] – A Gemini}[9th January 1988] ]

***cf. Leo.

****[sic]

#[Presumably the notional type as here described, not necessarily as named.]

#*It is perfectly possible to argue, conversely, that Diana is a type near R~ (cf. Sagittarius) (Diametric resonance?[!]) <880808>

[continues]

[PostedBlogger11for12092017]