whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Evolution & Creationism => Topic started by: screwtape on April 02, 2013, 07:05:52 AM

Title: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 02, 2013, 07:05:52 AM
doing the nasty?

I don't get why people characterize sex as dirty, nasty or naughty.  I suspect abrahamic religion is the culprit.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Fiji on April 02, 2013, 07:59:56 AM
^^ The Dutch language is ambivalent in this regards.
Genitals are refered to as "Noble parts", but the area where they're located is called the "Shame region" ... go figure.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: kindred on April 02, 2013, 09:34:37 AM
@screwtape

Sex is part of our baser nature. Most of the things in our baser nature are thought of as dirty and primitive. Mainly because they cause us to do stupid shit most of the time. Sure, there are those few occasions when the pull of the punani(or penis whichever genital you're attracted to), has given rise to us surpassing our baser nature and doing great things but most of the time our baser nature drives to do really really dumb things.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 02, 2013, 10:44:16 AM
Sex is part of our baser nature.

huh?  What makes it baser than anything else we do?  What would be an example of our higher nature?

most of the time our baser nature drives to do really really dumb things.

In my experience, everything about human nature causes us to do dumb things. 
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Traveler on April 02, 2013, 02:23:36 PM
Or perhaps people feel that its part of our "baser nature" because we've been taught by puritanical nutjobs that anything to do with the human body is disgusting. Sex can be a beautiful, transcendent thing. It can be a loving, sharing, joyful thing. The puritans and others of their ilk have a lot to answer for in making such a lovely activity into an evil thing.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 02, 2013, 02:41:38 PM
yeah, that.  As I said, I suspect abrahamic religion is the culprit.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Tonus on April 02, 2013, 02:55:42 PM
Isn't eating also part of our baser nature?
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Fiji on April 03, 2013, 12:52:47 AM
... or breathing ... why hasn't there been a pope who attacked mouth-breathers?

While on the subject of homosexuality ... Archbishop Leonard of Belgium said in an 'special'[1] Easter interview that he didn't have a problem with gays living together but they should refrain from having sex ...  :? ... because a Catholic clergyman is such an expert on matters of sex (between consenting adults anyway)?
And that homosexuality is 'something that comes from within'[2] and 'it is still something of a mystery'[3].
Which is about as close to screaming 'it's the devil!!!!' he can still go without actually saying so, in a country that has pretty much given his church the middle finger.
 1. special, how? even kookier than usual
 2. yay! Now your getting it!
 3. d'oh! So close!
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: kindred on April 03, 2013, 06:49:42 AM
@screwtape

Simply put, our impulses are our baser nature.

Our ability to use symbol logic, think logically, think with both the past and the future in mind to influence our present course of action and our ability to go against our immediate desires so as to choose a decision that will give us a better outcome with the long term in mind, all of that is part of our "higher nature."
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Azdgari on April 03, 2013, 07:43:34 AM
The use of normative language to describe something is itself irrational.  "Higher" and "lower" are not physically descriptive; they are value-judgments.  On what basis do you make these value-judgments?
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 03, 2013, 07:45:25 AM
Our ability to use symbol logic, think logically, think with both the past and the future in mind to influence our present course of action and our ability to go against our immediate desires so as to choose a decision that will give us a better outcome with the long term in mind, all of that is part of our "higher nature."

Those things aren't impulses too? 

It seems to me that the idea of "higher" or "baser" actions is an antiquated notion from the late 19th century.  It strikes me as rooted in the idea that people are not animals, BUT we have animal like behaviors - our baser instincts.   

I don't buy into that.  I think we are animals through and through.  Everything we do is animalish.  Our ability to use symbols and logic are specializations and products of evolution, just like the cheetah's speed or fish's ability to get oxygen from water.  In that regard, there is nothing higher about it.  So if there is no high, relatively speaking,  there can be no base.

Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Traveler on April 03, 2013, 11:22:14 AM
I agree with you guys. I think the concept of "baser" instincts came from the idea that being an animal was bad, primitive, something to be subdued. In my opinion, one of the more destructive concepts ever introduced to humanity. We are animals. Animals are not bad. Attempting to subdue our so-called animal instincts is destructive to our psyche. Now, I don't mean that we should go around killing or raping ... that's the mistake that these guys make. They seem to assume that it is a black and white issue. Either subdue every instinct, or we'll become a ravaging horde. That idea is patently absurd, and terribly simplistic.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: kindred on April 03, 2013, 03:30:54 PM
But great people are the ones who have garnered mastery over their impulses.

Take for example MMA fighters. Elite elusive technical strikers and grapplers use incredible control over their emotions in a match. They can get angry in 2 seconds to maximize their strength  and just as quickly calm down to a lower energy state. MMA fighters also have to cut weight and when they de, they must subdue every instinct to eat and drink because the lizard part of the brain is only thinking in the short term eat now and think of consequences later mode of thought. As a final example of MMA fighters control over baser instincts, fighters also need to shut the animal part of their brain only thinking in terms of winning because sometimes, winning comes at too high a cost for to little gain. Sometimes the fighters take too much damage and stand to gain even more damage just to get a very small chance of winning. Their animal brain is screaming "don't stop and keep fighting", even though the smart move would be to throw in the towel and cut losses. You don't want to shave years of your career just to gain a small chance of victory in a no name match.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Anfauglir on April 04, 2013, 02:54:02 AM
Maybe that's all true (leaving aside whether the initial desire to be an MMA fighter is an animal instinct in the first place....)

Why though, not call them "natural instincts" and "UNnatural instincts"?  It would be more correct, after all - though would of course shift the value judgement from one side to the other.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: kindred on April 04, 2013, 04:19:03 AM
Its just an arbitrary distinction. Think of it as something similar to taxonomy. A bunch of useful assumptions and arbitrary classifications that allow us to make more sense of knowledge we currently have and by ordering our current knowledge, we not only understand it better but actually create even more knowledge.

The concept of natural instincts vs higher thought is just too useful to be abandoned.

Edit. What you call it doesn't really matter unless you're into politics and trying to push your agenda on something with it.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2013, 07:48:57 AM
But great people are the ones who have garnered mastery over their impulses.

Sure.  But, I do not see anything unnatural about that.  People naturally have the ability to override impulses, by virtue of our brains.  That is our thing. 
None of the above are unnatural.  Our ability to make decisions contrary to our impulses is no higher than a bird taking flight. Or taking a dump.  Or getting too drunk to stand up.  It is all the same.

Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Dante on April 04, 2013, 09:38:05 AM
Sure.  But, I do not see anything unnatural about that.  People naturally have the ability to override impulses, by virtue of our brains.  That is our thing. 

It is our thing. And it is, or seems to be, only our thing, and not part of any other animal's thing. Cheetahs are fast, but so are other animals. Fish do swim, but so do other animals. Etc.

Yeah, it's natural, but it is, for lack of a better term, higher than other animals instincts.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2013, 11:25:06 AM
It is our thing. And it is, or seems to be, only our thing, and not part of any other animal's thing. Cheetahs are fast, but so are other animals. Fish do swim, but so do other animals. Etc.

Sure other animals are fast.  However, Fastest land animal is a cheetah.  Fastest fish is a sailfish or possibly sword fish.  Fastest bird is the Perigrine Falcon.  The best soaring birds are albatrosses or condors.  Other animals have big dongs, but only the Argentine lake duck's exceeds the length of its body.  Does that make its weiner its higher function?

Other animals have cognitive abilities too.  Mammals to a greater degree than most animals (excepting maybe goddamn cephalopods).  Amongst animals, apes have mad cognitive skillz.  And on top, us.

So I'd say we are highly specialized.  That does not make our natural ability to seemingly direct our actions at will a higher function.[1]

Wow.  This is SO off topic.  Sorry for the digression.

 1. I don't want to get into free will. 
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Dante on April 04, 2013, 11:58:29 AM

Wow.  This is SO off topic.  Sorry for the digression.

Yeah, but this is more interesting than debating basic human rights. Maybe a topic split is in order?

Sure other animals are fast.  However, Fastest land animal is a cheetah.  Fastest fish is a sailfish or possibly sword fish.  Fastest bird is the Perigrine Falcon.  The best soaring birds are albatrosses or condors.  Other animals have big dongs, but only the Argentine lake duck's exceeds the length of its body.  Does that make its weiner its higher function?

I don't know that large penises, or the ability to run fast, or the ability to swim are exactly instincts. They are simply evolutionary mechanisms to achieve fulfillment of the baser instincts of procreation, hunger, and breath. I don't think a drake, no matter penis size, thinks to itself, "Nah, I don't really want to fuck that duck today, but maybe tomorrow". Can a hungry cheetah choose to not chase an antelope? Can a fish choose not to swim?

That said, I don't know if we're the only species that has the ability to consciously suppress those instincts at will, but I'm fairly confident we're the ones that can do it most effectively.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2013, 01:28:52 PM
rawr.  I'm not expressing myself clearly. 

Our ability to think and choose to obey or ignore our impulses is what is being called "higher", while those impulses are being called "baser".  But that ability is just a function of our overgrown head organ.  Some other animals have some of the mentaly capacity we do, but not to our extent.  Ours is the best.

Similarly, other animals can do things we cannot - fly, swim squirt ink, whatever - all of which are results of various organs better developed than ours.  And all of those animals also have a "best in class" species.

So obviously in some way we are "different" than other animals, and can do things they cannot.  The opposite is also true.  Take away our best in class brains, and what have we got?  Nuthin.  We cannot do anything well compared to other animals.  We call our specialization "higher", but I really just see it as "different".  Otherwise, we would be calling other animals' specializations "higher" as well.

To me, higher and baser it feel like an outgrowth of xian thought which constantly seeks to differentiate between humans and animals on the basis of a soul. 

Now, if you want to call that kind of thing higher in terms of brain function - that is, the impulses are subordinated to the decision making part - then I have no argument there.  In that context the terminology has different meaning.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Dante on April 04, 2013, 02:05:31 PM
rawr.  I'm not expressing myself clearly. 

Haha, no, I think I understood the gist of your argument from the onset. Also, I do, to a degree, concur with it.

Our ability to think and choose to obey or ignore our impulses is what is being called "higher", while those impulses are being called "baser".  But that ability is just a function of our overgrown head organ.  Some other animals have some of the mentaly capacity we do, but not to our extent.  Ours is the best.

Agreed, and as far as we know, sure.

To me, higher and baser it feel like an outgrowth of xian thought which constantly seeks to differentiate between humans and animals on the basis of a soul.

Then that's on you. Or possibly on me, but I carry no religious baggage. To me, they're simply the difference between the the rudimentary, reptilian brain and the more complex brains that followed it on the evolutionary scale. We have such higher brain functions that we can control our more basic instincts to point that other animals cannot even dream of.[1]

Now, if you want to call that kind of thing higher in terms of brain function - that is, the impulses are subordinated to the decision making part - then I have no argument there.  In that context the terminology has different meaning.

So we've been arguing semantics the entire time? LOL!
 1. except, as far as we know, animals lack the higher function of fantasizing  ;)
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2013, 03:37:16 PM
oy.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: kindred on April 05, 2013, 03:09:19 AM
I don't get it.

Baser vs Higher thought is a good framework of thinking things through. Unless you somehow gave me a much better way of thinking, I don't get your reluctance to use the same framework of thought.

Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Mrjason on April 05, 2013, 05:28:17 AM

I don't get why people characterize sex as dirty, nasty or naughty.  I suspect abrahamic religion is the culprit.

I couldn't agree more.

I don't think it is about higher brain function etc though. I think it is more simple than that.

The introduction of the concept of a "soul" splits existence into two parts, the divine and the receptacle that houses the divinity.

The maxim "my body is a temple" is applied literally because of this and allows for the divine soul to be soiled by the desecration of the temple, particularly in a woman's case as "dirty things" are deposited within her body.
This gives rise to the inequality applied to how sexual activity is viewed between genders making promiscuous women sluts and promiscuous men heroes.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 05, 2013, 09:24:55 AM
Baser vs Higher thought is a good framework of thinking things through.

I don't understand how it would help.  To me it is just arbitrarily labeling certain ideas/ activities as "base" and others as "high".  I do not see the use.

How do you use that model to think things through?  How does it help you?
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: kindred on April 05, 2013, 11:19:52 AM
Baser vs Higher thought is a good framework of thinking things through.

I don't understand how it would help.  To me it is just arbitrarily labeling certain ideas/ activities as "base" and others as "high".  I do not see the use.

How do you use that model to think things through?  How does it help you?

You think with the higher parts of your brain. You think with logic and reason but you use your baser desires to set goals.

Your horny and desire sex but also want companionship? You let your higher brain functions take stock of the situation. Lets say your solution is to have a girlfriend. Is it convenient or feasible to have a girlfriend this very moment? Lets say your taking night school and have a full time job. Your higher thought will tell you that maybe you should finish up night school so as to have more time before you try and net yourself a GF. Sort of works like that.

If you try and set goals logically it just ends up with you having no motivation. No matter how good the career path you've chosen in terms of stability, you're still human and won't enjoy it. On the flipside, if you try and use your gut instinct or your "baser" thoughts to plan things ahead, well its not pretty either.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 05, 2013, 11:29:48 AM
I don't see how that improves my perspective on anything.  If it works for you, though, great.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: kindred on April 05, 2013, 11:57:35 AM
Then what is your problem with the whole base vs high distinction?
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: screwtape on April 05, 2013, 12:44:45 PM
Then what is your problem with the whole base vs high distinction?

It depends which version you mean.  If it is the "sex is base because it is instinctual and animals do it" version, then I think it is a silly and false one predicated on Victorian era thinking and ideas that "souls" exist.  But if you find it helpful, it's no skin off my nose. It is not as if you are trying to base policy on it. 

If it is the "one part of your brain subborns another", then I have no problem at all.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: kindred on April 06, 2013, 07:16:39 AM
Guess we have no reasoned argument here. Mostly just a misunderstanding.

What I mean by saying baser/higher thoughts is the latter part of your two distinctions.

Although, animals are instinctual and "beneath" humans. We are just better at whatever we want to be. Granted we're still pretty stupid. Mostly because we don't have realistic expectations and have a distorted view of ourselves thanks to bias.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Bluecolour on April 06, 2013, 02:04:37 PM
doing the nasty?

I don't get why people characterize sex as dirty, nasty or naughty.  I suspect abrahamic religion is the culprit.

@screwtape
Your putting the cart before the horse.[1]


I think this question delves into very deep waters.
The problem is that despite all the talk you hear about how beautiful and wonderfully natural sex is I doubt there's anyone who strictly believes this with complete honesty. For starters it suggests a disagreement with many if not all of the restrictions that mankind has placed on sex throughout history. While this seems like a leap in logic, consider that the bulk of these restrictions were in the first place developed because in various ancient cultures some or the other aspect of sex was considered 'yucky' and not to be practiced.

Still let me bring this closer to home. If one is sincerely of the opinion that sex is completely natural, nothing to be ashamed of and to quote Traveler "a loving, sharing, joyous thing... such a lovely activity," then how does one defend the age restriction on sexual content in movies? I mean, if its such a lovely activity then why not let your children watch it? Why do we lie or obscure the details when were asked where babies come from, or what daddy was doing on top of mommy?[2]

Even in nudist colonies where members have done away with the absurd shame man has over his own genitals, sex [to my knowledge] is still hidden behind closed doors. And we are not doing this because of god or religion, rather we seem to cover up our sexual nature in the same way a dog buries its bones. At first yes with dogmatic instructions and yet today with equally restrictive tenets concerning etiquette and acceptable workplace behavior. Where does it end?
 1. ultimately
 2. or vice-versa, I don't know what your into
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Azdgari on April 06, 2013, 02:38:51 PM
The problem is that despite all the talk you hear about how beautiful and wonderfully natural sex is I doubt there's anyone who strictly believes this with complete honesty.

Ahh, the old "you yourself don't believe what you're saying" accusation.  It's impossible to disprove this sort of thing, and it does nothing to further any sort of discussion.  Then again, that's the point, right?

For starters it suggests a disagreement with many if not all of the restrictions that mankind has placed on sex throughout history.

Sex throughout history tended to produce babies.  Regardless of its beauty or lack thereof, it was not - until the advent of reliable contraception - something to be trifled with.

While this seems like a leap in logic, consider that the bulk of these restrictions were in the first place developed because in various ancient cultures some or the other aspect of sex was considered 'yucky' and not to be practiced.

So says you; do you conclude this from actual historical information, or from your own Abrahamic biases?  Anyway, "sex is yucky" is a lot easier and more effective to teach to youngsters than "sex is serious" if one wishes to discourage the activity.

Still let me bring this closer to home. If one is sincerely of the opinion that sex is completely natural, nothing to be ashamed of and to quote Traveler "a loving, sharing, joyous thing... such a lovely activity," then how does one defend the age restriction on sexual content in movies?  I mean, if its such a lovely activity then why not let your children watch it?

Kids emulate what they see.  Regardless of sex's beauty or lack thereof, that's not necessarily a good idea for kids to be doing.  Their emotions aren't mature enough to handle the feelings that can come with sex.  And because they're kids, explaining all this to them rationally isn't likely to be effective.  So we use other methods of making it taboo.  Unfortunately, these immature measures can survive into adulthood, as you demonstrate.

Why do we lie or obscure the details when were asked where babies come from, or what daddy was doing on top of mommy?[1]
 1. or vice-versa, I don't know what your into

Because honesty is a deadly sin in Christianity.

Even in nudist colonies where members have done away with the absurd shame man has over his own genitals, sex [to my knowledge] is still hidden behind closed doors.

You've...never actually had sex, have you?  It can be a very personal thing, made more special in that it's shared with someone else you care about.  Doing it in public doesn't lend itself to that feeling so well.  Also, humans can be jealous creatures, and public sex might be seen as flaunting what one has.  There are all sorts of reasons for this that have nothing to do with our residual, childish "yuck" reaction.

And we are not doing this because of god or religion, rather we seem to cover up our sexual nature in the same way a dog buries its bones.

You've...never taken a sociology or anthropology course, have you?

At first yes with dogmatic instructions and yet today with equally restrictive tenets concerning etiquette and acceptable workplace behavior. Where does it end?

What are you referring to here?  Policies against sexual harrassment?
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Traveler on April 06, 2013, 03:22:34 PM
What Azdgari said.

Forgetting for a moment the fact that there are people who do enjoy sex in groups, and that many ancient societies shared living quarters so that children were exposed to sex, I'm talking about sex between loving partners. Its about intimacy, not shame, to want to do it in private. Its a bonding between the two. As Azdgari said, if done in public its no longer an intimate setting. It becomes something else. A performance? I don't know what I'd call that. But most of us are not that much into exhibitionist activities. Loving partners, sharing together, and only together. It helps to form a deeper bond between the two, and is part of what makes it beautiful.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Mrjason on April 08, 2013, 04:31:57 AM
What Astra said.

Forgetting for a moment the fact that there are people who do enjoy sex in groups, and that many ancient societies shared living quarters so that children were exposed to sex, I'm talking about sex between loving partners. Its about intimacy, not shame, to want to do it in private. Its a bonding between the two. As Astra said, if done in public its no longer an intimate setting. It becomes something else. A performance? I don't know what I'd call that. But most of us are not that much into exhibitionist activities. Loving partners, sharing together, and only together. It helps to form a deeper bond between the two, and is part of what makes it beautiful.
...this and if its done in public its also a criminal offence
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: Graybeard on April 08, 2013, 06:18:08 AM
doing the nasty?

I don't get why people characterize sex as dirty, nasty or naughty.  I suspect abrahamic religion is the culprit.

I think the premise is wrong. I don’t know anyone who would say that sex is dirty, or nasty and would only apply “naughty” in certain circumstances. I should imagine that this latter idea pre-dates Abraham by a few hundred thousand years. The idea of "dirty and nasty" is quite separate and very recent.

First we have to understand that our purpose on earth, like every other living creature’s, is to reproduce our genes. Imagine 2 Neolithic families:

Smith, has a daughter, the other, Jones, a son.

If the son impregnates the daughter, the concern of Smith’s parents is that they will end up taking care of the offspring, that they will die before their daughter is able to fully bring up the child, and that thus, the child will die. The Smiths want a good and capable father for their genes to progress.

The Jones, on the other hand, want a suitable woman to bear the children. One they can trust with their genes; one who will be a good mother.

Bad fathers and mothers were weeded out by natural selection and whole blood-lines ended. Quickly, humans began to learn that this process of mating needed to be approached carefully and with some planning and this was the parents’ job. It wasn’t good enough that two young people, filled with hormones should go at it like bunnies on coke, they had to be the two right people: the sons of the better hunters and the daughters of the better mothers. What was needed was a fertile woman who came from a family that had looked after her well, so she had learned about families and could be judged to be a good mother. So, sex with a random partner was wrong!

As time went on, an agrarian society obsessed with land appeared. Men owned land because they defended it. Now Jones’s parents had to look for a prospective mother and how they could increase their land and thus increase the chances of the survival of their genes. The harder it was to obtain good land, the more restrictive was the outlook on who should be the mother and thus who their son should mate with. The Smith family, having a daughter, wanted to ensure the good father and husband, not some fly-by-night or rich kid who would run off and leave them saddled with a child – another mouth to feed. So, sex with a random partner was wrong!

The 19th century brought increase in public health and survival rates. You could have 15 or so children in a lifetime and it was necessary to be able to care for them, so the choice of a partner became even more important.

Up to this point, sex was truly dangerous, but not dirty – you could die in childbirth, you could have more children than you could look after, you could be saddled with the wrong husband or wife.

You remember the story of Jacob and the breeding of striped sheep? You remember the biblical test for virginity? Why was this important?

Well right up until this point in time, it was believed that if a woman had sex with a man, then part of that man’s character was imprinted on her and that subsequent babies, regardless of the natural father, would have traces of previous partners in them and their character. (In some parts of the dog-breeding world, this exists today – they believe that, if say a prize bulldog bitch breeds with a mongrel, subsequent litters sired by a bulldog, will bear traces of the mongrel. True!)

The 20th century gave us welfare systems that would ensure the survival of children, so vast quantities of them were not necessary. In the middle of the century, life was to change for ever.

The 2nd World War was important. During the First World War, massive casualties were caused by venereal disease. To protect the 2WW troops from venereal disease, condoms were handed out. Fighting men became used to the idea and these became plentiful and accepted and any partner would do. The war gave us cheap, convenient and reliable contraception.

For the first time in our history, you might think that parents need not exercise too much caution over the sex-drive of their children. But all these parents had been brought up with other ideas. Adults had been taught that contraception was, in fact, protection against disease and thus the connection was made – sex is dirty!

The pill arrived and suddenly there was no protection from disease but there was protection from knocking out babies by the score.

Old thoughts and memes die hard, but, as far as I’m concerned, and judging by the falling marriage rate but the birth rate remaining stable, humans no longer think of sex as dirty; they no longer think that sex = 100% babies.

So sex was dirty, and nasty because of the war. It is now only naughty in the eyes of the old, who have not yet disassociated sex from disease.
Title: Re: Baser human desires
Post by: kindred on April 08, 2013, 10:33:05 PM
All these memes. Personally, sex is just pleasure and an invasion of privacy to me. It feels good but comes at the cost of having another living breathing human being see you in a very private moment. Also hormones being excreted that bond you to that other person which is a bit of a bother to a person like me thats not interested in that.

Never knew that there were so many ways of looking at sex.