Excellent point about Ennis having his eyes closed, Jeff - if his eyes are closed than it's not really "face to face" and all the symbolism that entails.
You know, I've always had a problem with that line in the SS. How can you make love with a man all summer — with his strong limbs, firm hairy chest, whiskers and man-smell — and still stay in some kind of denial about doing so?
You know, I've always had a problem with that line in the SS. How can you make love with a man all summer — with his strong limbs, firm hairy chest, whiskers and man-smell — and still stay in some kind of denial about doing so?
"Ennis woke in red dawn with his pants around his knees, a top-grade headache, and Jack butted against him; without saying anything about it both knew how it would go for the rest of the summer, sheep be damned.
As it did go. They never talked about the sex, let it happen, at first only in the tent at night, then in the full daylight with the hot sun striking down, and at evening in the fire glow, quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises..."
Then:
"Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was Jack he held."
I mean, wtf?
Forgive me if I'm sharing too much, but I was jerking off to gay porn for years before I acknowledged to myself that I'm gay.
Maybe it's easier for men--gay or straight--to "compartmentalize" a difference between "having sex" and "making love"?
I would venture to say that many gay men have had sex with a man at some time in their lives who did not look at them, did not touch them, and kept their head turned away during the entire proceedings.
Plus, in Ennis' case, I've always understood from the story that he was the "active" partner in their sex. Fucking is something that a man does. It's not making love--which I think is what we see in the second tent scene in the film--it's just fucking. Plus, consider AP's description, all that "laughing and snorting" and so forth. That's not making love. That's just two horny 19-year-olds rutting.
Man. That's really crappy!! :(
I'll forgive you for sharing, if you forgive me for prying. What was going through your mind? Can you be any more specific about what you thought about your own sexuality? What did you call it, if not gay? I'm sorry, I know it's absolutely none of my business, but now that you've brought it up I do find it interesting.
Yes, Jeff, I respect your opinion and the things you've had to say here, but your statement above kind of shocked me. Is there something going on in your life right now that would cause you say such bitter things? It's kind of scary. Did you just break up with someone or something like that? I think more highly of men, both straight and gay, than the way you're describing them to be. I hope you're okay?
That doesn't seem bitter to me. I think I understand where you're coming from here, Jeff. I appreciate you and Kerry's candor and all. When I asked "How can you make love with a man all summer..." I didn't necessarily mean all hearts-and-flowers; I basically meant fuck, LOL.
And of course Jack, though quite sad, coped with their job's sudden end better than Ennis, because he hadn't been denying the core truth of their relationship to himself.
Yep, it sure is crappy. Happens with women too. Many years ago, a dear friend of mine fell on hard times. She had relocated to Sydney from London with her lesbian partner and infant daughter. They opened a small seaside business together, which soon folded because the partner became very homesick and returned to the UK, leaving my friend alone with her daughter and a business she couldn't run alone. For many various reasons, the only way out that my friend could see was for her to go on the game. It was a very bad time for her, but she somehow made it work for her and managed to turn her life around. She entertained gentleman callers in her home (by the hour and half-hour) while her daughter was at school. She was young back then and stylish and discreet with it. Her awfully proper, peaches and cream English persona prevented her neighbours from ever suspecting why so many "friends" called on her during the day. But I digress. Get back to the point, Kerry. We were like sisters back then and she shared a great deal with me. I remember she once told me that she would never kiss her clients. It was a little rule she made for herself. She had somehow worked out that she did sex for survival, to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. But kissing involved love, which she saw as having nothing to do with what she was doing to survive. As it was, she ended up breaking her no-kissing rule big time. Not only did she start kissing one of her clients, she married him! He was very rich though.
Well, Jeff and Lee, I'm offended by both of your remarks about my comment. I was truly concerned that Jeff's tone had changed suddenly and was worried about him. I certainly do know men, and I take offense at his comment that I don't. I was also rather appalled at the language being used, and I'm certainly not a prude; I just didn't find it appropriate on this particular forum. Whatever, maybe I shouldn't be here at all if this is the way people are going to talk about each other these days. Last time I checked, there was a rule about saying cruel things about people. Guess that's changed.
Was a good topic, Laura. Sorry it went astray.
In any case, as a bystander I didn't take their comments to be cruel or intended to cause offense. :-\
And of course Jack, though quite sad, coped with their job's sudden end better than Ennis, because he hadn't been denying the core truth of their relationship to himself.
In the context of Brokeback Mountain, Ennis has mistaken the sex with Jack for animalistic rutting. It's part of his denial. ("This is just a one-shot thing" etc.) In truth, their relationship is much bigger and more emotionally substantial than that, for both parties. Ennis only realizes this later.
That Jeff Wrangler...he went off on his train Odyssey and left us with a cliffhanger!! But I'll bet when he checks in again he'll say he's not bitter about ennithing, and he didn't just break up with ennione, he's just 'splaining for you how things are with men...or perhaps I should say, the male animal. Capable of the deepest love and able to explore a universe of love, lust and sensuality, somtimes for the man (and for the woman too, I dare say) it's just fucking.
I'll have to say, Mandy, that neither Jeff's nor Lee's comments seemed out of line to me. Jeff's initial post seemed to be commenting on a generalized aspect of male behavior -- not true for every man all the time, of course, but I didn't gather he was saying that.
In any case, as a bystander I didn't take their comments to be cruel or intended to cause offense. :-\
Kerry and Jeff, thanks so much for sharing your personal experiences with such openness and honesty.
First Hand? :laugh: :laugh: And I'll bet the editors of that little magazine never could've imagined what would be available on the internet someday!
Well, Jeff and Lee, I'm offended by both of your remarks about my comment. I was truly concerned that Jeff's tone had changed suddenly and was worried about him. I certainly do know men, and I take offense at his comment that I don't. I was also rather appalled at the language being used, and I'm certainly not a prude; I just didn't find it appropriate on this particular forum. Whatever, maybe I shouldn't be here at all if this is the way people are going to talk about each other these days. Last time I checked, there was a rule about saying cruel things about people. Guess that's changed.
You know, I've always had a problem with that line in the SS. How can you make love with a man all summer — with his strong limbs, firm hairy chest, whiskers and man-smell — and still stay in some kind of denial about doing so?Very interesting, Laura.
"Ennis woke in red dawn with his pants around his knees, a top-grade headache, and Jack butted against him; without saying anything about it both knew how it would go for the rest of the summer, sheep be damned.
As it did go. They never talked about the sex, let it happen, at first only in the tent at night, then in the full daylight with the hot sun striking down, and at evening in the fire glow, quick, rough, laughing and snorting, no lack of noises..."
Then:
"Nothing marred it, even the knowledge that Ennis would not then embrace him face to face because he did not want to see nor feel that it was Jack he held."
I mean, wtf?
animal. Capable of the deepest love and able to explore a universe of love, lust and sensuality, somtimes for the man (and for the woman too, I dare say) it's just fucking.I don´t think there´s a big difference at all when it comes to men and women in that area.
I don´t think there´s a big difference at all when it comes to men and women in that area.
The whole thing about women always craving an emotional bond before engaging in sex..*cough*
Believe me, sometimes women, too, just want to screw.
Women and men aren´t really all that different.
I don´t think there´s a big difference at all when it comes to men and women in that area.
The whole thing about women always craving an emotional bond before engaging in sex..*cough*
Believe me, sometimes women, too, just want to screw.
Women and men aren´t really all that different.
Women and men aren´t really all that different.
My opinion is that they are at least somewhat different. Do women ever just want what Erica Jong called a "zipless fuck"? Sure. But because of either biology or society or some mixture of the two, women most of the time to look for an emotional connection. Men often look for emotional connections, too, of course, but they can do without them more easily.I don´t recognise myself in that. I often find pictures sexy as well as characters in a book. And how many women don´t have pictures of male models flaunting their abs and whatnot on their walls?
Here's a test. How many women here are easily aroused by a magazine photo of a naked man or woman? For myself, I'd say it's pretty close to never. Not that I represent all women, obviously. But I would guess that there's a reason the vast majority of magazine pictures of naked people, of either gender, are intended for men. A two-dimensional image of a stranger, howeve attractive, does not do it for me.
I'm much more likely to find, for example, a movie character sexy. Why? Because then there's the illusion of an emotional connection. Watching the movie, I feel like I "know" something about the person.
BTW, I don't see this as a moral judgment about either men or women. It just is what it is.
Very interesting, Laura.
I´ve interpreted that to mean that Ennis was admitting to himself that he had sex with a man. After all, sex can be just that...sex. But an embrace..especially a sexless one as the dozy embrace implies something else...tenderness...feelings. I don´t think Ennis was ready to admitt that he was holding a man in an embrace that wasn´t a prelude to sex.
I don´t recognise myself in that. I often find pictures sexy as well as characters in a book. And how many women don´t have pictures of male models flaunting their abs and whatnot on their walls
We seem to have different experiences regarding this. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that we shouldn´t make any generalisations about what women supposedly want or not want at all?
Well, I never did suggest that we´d never maked generalisations ever. They do come in handy at times, and sometimes it´s impossible to have a discussion without them.
But I´m not myself comfortable with the generalisation that women don´t get turned on by watching pictures and don´t have sex without any emotional attachment.
And I don´t personally see the need to make generalisations in this case. People´s sexuality or turn-ons perhaps isn´t tied up with gender at all.
Well, I never did suggest that we´d never maked generalisations ever. They do come in handy at times, and sometimes it´s impossible to have a discussion without them.
But I´m not myself comfortable with the generalisation that women don´t get turned on by watching pictures and don´t have sex without any emotional attachment.
My opinion is that they are at least somewhat different. Do women ever just want what Erica Jong called a "zipless fuck"? Sure. But because of either biology or society or some mixture of the two, women most of the time to look for an emotional connection. Men often look for emotional connections, too, of course, but they can do without them more easily.
People´s sexuality or turn-ons perhaps isn´t tied up with gender at all.
Buffy, I believe there are some significant cultural differences between the US and western Europe as regards social and dating behavior, and I have noted this many times living in Europe and talking with young people in their 20's and 30's, gay, straight, college students, and teens who are just starting out their social/love lives. My conclusion is that the US, in particular (even distinct from nearby Canada) is an extremely repressed culture overall, and follows and attempts to enforce much stricter sex roles, particularly with regard to women, and that affects their behavior. Not Taliban level, but keep in mind that the Puritan Separatists did found the first settlements of Europeans in North America and they represented the most extreme religious conservativism of Europe from the 17th century. A mere 90 years ago women were not allowed to vote in the US whatsoever - it's a very different place!
and yes, that's a great big generalization but it is provably reflected in our indecency standards on television programs, film ratings, etc. etc. etc.
Well, as you've said, it doesn't apply to you, which is fine. I never said it applies to every single woman. And as for the second part of your sentence, I specifically said the opposite. Let's revisit what I said:I don´t think sexuality is all tied up with gender, no. I believe biological factors are part of it, but many people I´ve talked to, can trace their "triggers" or "turn-ons" to events in their childhood. I also think it has to do with the climate in the society you´re brought up in and many other chance occurrences.
You might not be familiar with the Erica Jong reference, but "zipless fuck" essentially means sex without emotional attachment.
I never said no woman ever has sex without emotional attachment. Hell, I've done it myself. I said women TEND to place emotional attachments as a priority, and more so than men. To say that this is not true of you does not prove the generalization incorrect.
Not only do I disagree, but I can't imagine what would make you think this. It doesn't even make sense from an intuition standpoint -- why would sexuality and turn-ons be totally unrelated to gender? All kinds of behaviors are related to gender. Why would sexual attraction -- which is clearly more, well, related to gender than a lot of other things that are related to gender -- be the exception?
Buffy, I believe there are some significant cultural differences between the US and western Europe as regards social and dating behavior, and I have noted this many times living in Europe and talking with young people in their 20's and 30's, gay, straight, college students, and teens who are just starting out their social/love lives. My conclusion is that the US, in particular (even distinct from nearby Canada) is an extremely repressed culture overall, and follows and attempts to enforce much stricter sex roles, particularly with regard to women, and that affects their behavior. Not Taliban level, but keep in mind that the Puritan Separatists did found the first settlements of Europeans in North America and they represented the most extreme religious conservativism of Europe from the 17th century. A mere 90 years ago women were not allowed to vote in the US whatsoever - it's a very different place!Interesting post, thanks L.
and yes, that's a great big generalization but it is provably reflected in our indecency standards on television programs, film ratings, etc. etc. etc.
I don´t think sexuality is all tied up with gender, no. I believe biological factors are part of it, but many people I´ve talked to, can trace their "triggers" or "turn-ons" to events in their childhood. I also think it has to do with the climate in the society you´re brought up in and many other chance occurrences.
And no, sexuality isn´t an exception. I think most things that control is is a result of a mix between social factors and biological factors.
This is an accepted view in this scientific field as well, as I think you´re very well aware of.
There's nothing here that I disagree with, but I don't see how it refutes anything I said.*lol* I hardly remember where this started either...but let´s try to backtrack...
Biological factors influence sexual behavior.
Events in childhood influence sexual behavior.
Society influences sexual behavior.
Chance occurrences influence sexual behavior.
A mix of social factors and biological factors control most types of behavior.
Where did I disagree with any of the above? If you feel that your statements contradict what I said in previous posts, I think it's possible you didn't understand my previous posts.
Of course experiences, whether in events in childhood or chance occurrences, influence individual attitudes and desires. How could they not? Sometimes those childhood events and chance occurrences also have something to do with the person's gender, sometimes not (and of course the way people react to childhood events or chance occurrences -- whether they are affected in such a way that these experiences become turnons or are bad experiences or aren't memorable or sexual one way or another -- differ from one person to another, sometimes due to genetic factors, also sometimes in relationship to gender and sometimes not). As for biological and social factors, they also influence attitudes and desires, and the also are sometimes connected with gender and sometimes not.
*lol* I hardly remember where this started either...but let´s try to backtrack...
I think what I disagreed with from the beginning was the generalization that women (more than men) needs an emotional attachment to her sexpartner. And that women in general aren´t turned on by pictures.
and I also expressed doubts concerning generalizations based on soley gender when it came to these specific questions.
That was at least what I was trying to get across. :)
Wouldn´t it be ironic if we 2000 posts later would come to the conclusion that we really don´t disagree on anything at all ;D
I just want to say that I feel very emotionally connected to every half-naked picture of Jake I see.
I just want to say that I feel very emotionally connected to every half-naked picture of Jake I see.
Erica Jong ... "zipless fuck"
I just want to say that I feel very emotionally connected to every half-naked picture of Jake I see.
One way to look at it is to look at the behavior of male and female homosexuals. There is monogamy and promiscuity in each group, sure. But in what degrees? What percentages?
I don't have any hard data handy, but the anecdotal data tells a pretty clear story. Are there any commercial places set up specifically for women to have sex, such as bathouses? Have we ever read of police busts on public areas where women collect for casual sex encounters? Such as parks, bathrooms, and such? (and what about the infrastructure for setting up in-person or virtual encounters such as web sites, ads, phone hotlines, et cetera?)
One way to look at it is to look at the behavior of male and female homosexuals. There is monogamy and promiscuity in each group, sure. But in what degrees? What percentages?My answer to that is that this behaviour is grounded in history. Women's sexuality has for a long time been suppressed. It hasn't been okay for women to "just" wanna screw or to even admit that they think about sex. Men and sexuality has on the other hand been seen as something natural, something unstopable.
I don't have any hard data handy, but the anecdotal data tells a pretty clear story. Are there any commercial venues set up specifically for women to have casual sex, such as bathouses? Have we ever read of police busts on public areas where women collect for casual or anonymous sex encounters? Such as parks, bathrooms, and such? (and what about the infrastructure for setting up in-person or virtual encounters such as web sites, ads, phone hotlines, et cetera?)
Excellent point, Laura. I've often thought about that, too.
This came up earlier here at BetterMost, in discussions of strangers having sex in public places, such as restrooms. Obviously, it's something that some men do from time to time. Again, I don't have statistics handy, but I'm guessing it's very, very unusual for women (aside from prostitutes) to have quick casual sex with someone they have never spoken to and know absolutely nothing about.
For that matter, how many women -- as opposed to men -- hire prostitutes? I would guess there are far, far more prostitutes of either gender catering to men than there are for women.
Another sign of difference: the number of male rapists and molesters vs. the much lower number of female rapists and molesters. Not that rape is all about sex -- there's a violence aspect, too, and women tend to commit fewer violent crimes of all kinds. Other factors may include physical strength, the physiology of arousal, etc. Still, it's telling that female perpetrators are so uncommon -- again, not nonexistent, but relatively rare.
If men and women were indistinguishable in terms of their appetite for casual, no-strings sex, they'd be equally involved with all that stuff.
My answer to that is that this behaviour is grounded in history. Women's sexuality has for a long time been suppressed. It hasn't been okay for women to "just" wanna screw or to even admit that they think about sex. Men and sexuality has on the other hand been seen as something natural, something unstopable.
I believe that as women become less and less suppressed we will see more women engage in this type of behaviour.
Someone mentioned rape though, and rape isn't about sex. (And even if it were - the majority of rapes occur between people that now each other so it wouldn't be about casual sex anyhow.)
Another side of this concerns male rape. The dark number is believed to be high.
The difference here, I would concur, may be related to biology, but the rise in violent crime perpetrated by women, including child molestation and rap,e shows that things are changing - and biology doesn't change that fast. However - culture does. Most rape of males by females is by female adults with male children or adolescents, however, I have been involved in the prosecution process as a witness against a female perpetrator against her daughter. The D.A. refused to press a sexual assault charge, desptie physical evidence. His reason was blunt: "no one would believe a mother would do that to her daughter." He's right, too: a jury wouldn't convict a woman of molesting her daughter, because they deny it happens. Also, according to the dictates of the strict sex roles of this society: boys, adolescent males and men are acculturated to treat unwanted sexual contact from females as flattering, and not as abuse. There have been a few high-profile instances of sexual abuse of girls by women, possibly the highest profile one was at Oprah's south African school, where female staff members were abusing the schoolgirls. It happens: but people dont' talk about it. It's not biology at work here.
What I mean when I say that rape isn´t about sex, is that the purpose of the act isn´t sex. The purpose is control - the rape is only the the tool.
I was the one who mentioned rape. Rape IS sex. It's not JUST about sex -- I said before that is also about violence. But it's violence (and power, and aggression, and intimidation, etc.) expressed through sex. To say it's not about sex is like saying robbery isn't about money. I have written a fair amount about rape, and I have heard many many people say "rape isn't about sex." What I think they're trying to get at is that it's not about the same kind of sex that is the result of love, or even physical attraction. But it very much does involve sex, by definition.
Women don't rape partly because they're not interested in having that kind of sex.
Katherine, I would say that there are forces far different than biology involved here; it is a cultural standard for the dominant sex - for there is no doubt that the US is a patriarchal society - to determine the modes of sexual behavior, and this has been true since the rise of patriarchal cultures based in classical Greece and Rome. Men had a privileged role as citizens in classical society, and the noble class had free access to slaves and citizens of both sexes to enjoy, and lacking the stigma against same sex relations, indulged in both, whereas women had very strictly defined sex and labor roles as caretakers, housekeepers and cooks, and could not be citizens. In the US today the 'modern' 'socialist' innovations of 'parental leave' which extends to both husbands and wives is derided in the US as relegating husbands to caretaking roles they should not "have to do." Only in America is there such a term as "Mr. Mom," because parenting is seen as a domestic duty of the chattel female who must bear and care for children. Europe is way ahead in terms of sharing parenting in families, equalizing professional roles, and removing stigmas that relegate women to a narrow range of behavior. Accordingly, you will see a very different type of demographic for dating and public sexual behavior in those cultures because the emphasis is changing - socially speaking, Europe is at least 100 years ahead of the US (that is my completely made-up statistic based on personal observation.)
In the US today the 'modern' 'socialist' innovations of 'parental leave' which extends to both husbands and wives is derided in the US as relegating husbands to caretaking roles they should not "have to do." Only in America is there such a term as "Mr. Mom," because parenting is seen as a domestic duty of the chattel female who must bear and care for children.
The difference here, I would concur, may be related to biology, but the rise in violent crime perpetrated by women, including child molestation and rap,e shows that things are changing - and biology doesn't change that fast. However - culture does. Most rape of males by females is by female adults with male children or adolescents, however, I have been involved in the prosecution process as a witness against a female perpetrator against her daughter. The D.A. refused to press a sexual assault charge, desptie physical evidence. His reason was blunt: "no one would believe a mother would do that to her daughter." He's right, too: a jury wouldn't convict a woman of molesting her daughter, because they deny it happens. Also, according to the dictates of the strict sex roles of this society: boys, adolescent males and men are acculturated to treat unwanted sexual contact from females as flattering, and not as abuse. There have been a few high-profile instances of sexual abuse of girls by women, possibly the highest profile one was at Oprah's south African school, where female staff members were abusing the schoolgirls. It happens: but people dont' talk about it. It's not biology at work here.
Another side of this concerns male rape. The dark number is believed to be high.
Males can be raped by other men (most often heterosexual men) or by women, but these cases are often not reported because of the stigma.
I read about male rape a while ago. I recomend this site
http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/myths_about_male_rape.htm
What I mean when I say that rape isn´t about sex, is that the purpose of the act isn´t sex. The purpose is control - the rape is only the the tool.
and that´s why I wouldn´t agree with you that the reason why women don´t rape (which they do)
After all, women are also interested in being in control which is the purpose of a rape. I think the reason simply is that it´s more difficult for us. Men are generally stronger.
This is an interesting discussion. Thanks for participting, everyone.
Still, and I can't think of any way to prove this one way or the other, but I find it very very difficult to believe that as women become less suppressed we will start seeing them engage in quick, casual sex with random total strangers in the same numbers that men do.
I agree with most of this, because I agree there are cultural and social components to differences between male and female behavior.
In reading through this thread, I'm wondering...
If it is true that many women's behaviour is turning more "like men's" when it comes to having constant and casual sex, how do we know that this is "the real and non-repressed" women's behaviour? It seems to me that being sexually desirable, presenting oneself as a sexual being/sexual object and expressing oneself through frequent and also casual sex is being held forth as one of the western culture's current standards of success. You meet this cultural trait everywhere you turn - in all sorts of shows, commercials, ads, performances, billboards, movies - very much come across as soft porn and focus pretty directly on sex. I'm merely observing, not passing judgment, btw - and I'm not a prude. (I hope!!)
But I would postulate that women's current behavioural changes may be culturally conditioned as much as previous times' forced abstinence or limited sexual activity for woman ever was. That frequent casual sex with many partners may in fact have an element of cultural conditioning, and not only represent a return to our original, unrepressed, self-asserting, self-realizing state.
When was the behaviour of anyone, anywhere, ever not significantly impacted by the culture they were a part of?
Let me ask you this. Do you really feel that there are no differences whatsoever between male and female attitudes and behavior? That is, do you think that men and women, though obviously different on the outside, are indistinguishable on the inside? If not -- that is, if you think it's possible that men and women do differ on the inside -- then why would sexuality be an exception? Or if so -- if you think differences between men and women are just external -- then would you attribute all of the differences in male/female behavior, throughout all of history and across all cultures, to purely bodily differences such as physical strength rather than anything emotional or behavioral?I think there are differences between female attitudes and behavior. To me the question is what differences is a result of genetics, and what differences is due to social factors. I think one should be careful pinpoint certain types of behavior as "biological" because it can easily be misused. And whatever biological differenses between the sexes there might be, I personally beleve that thousands of years of of social codes imposed on human sexuality has left its mark to the extent that social factors might almost overule the biological ones.
In reading through this thread, I'm wondering...Good point, Mikaela. I would say that everything (or most things at least) we do is culturally conditioned, but the question here is what came first. I.e what´s the hen and what´s the egg? Is the "sexsexsex" in shows, commercials, ads etc what has triggered that kind of behavior in women, or is it itself a result of a change it the attitudes of women and society?
If it is true that many women's behaviour is turning more "like men's" when it comes to having constant and casual sex, how do we know that this is "the real and non-repressed" women's behaviour? It seems to me that being sexually desirable, presenting oneself as a sexual being/sexual object and expressing oneself through frequent and also, if necessary, casual sex is being held forth as one of the western culture's current standards for both male and female success. You meet this cultural trait everywhere you turn - in all sorts of shows, commercials, ads, performances, billboards, movies - very much come across as soft porn and focus pretty directly on sexsexsex. I'm merely observing, not passing judgment, btw - and I'm not a prude. (I hope!!)
But I would postulate that women's current behavioural changes may be culturally conditioned as much as previous times' forced abstinence or limited sexual activity for women ever were. That frequent casual sex with many partners may in fact have a considerable element of cultural conditioning in it, and not only represent a return to our original, unrepressed, self-asserting, self-realizing state.