I couldn’t help write this post. I realise that this is a controversial topic but it seems that the basic issue is ridden with hypocrisy. Let me start with the age old debate about whether we are animals or are we more special on this earth.
While in Hyderabad, I recall seeing a dead dog on the road and most vehicles whizzing past the carcass without bothering to stop. I did and realised that I didn’t have the necessary protection to handle a carcass and hence called the Municipal Corporation and the Blue Cross. When I spoke to some people around the general tone was “It’s just a dog!”. I wonder if the cars would have whizzed past if it was some lady dead in the middle of the road (I would have still been concerned about my lack of protective gear). Often when there have been accidents I have observed people more interested in raking a fight and a controversy rather than in tending to the victims. Bangalore has served me with a couple of situations where I got to take the victims to the hospital while other passers-by were busy fighting.
This brings me to an oft recurring question: How animal are we (I am sure a cow also ignored the dead dog. So are we any different from a cow or a grasshopper?)? How much unlike the average animal are we?
People who love to think themselves greater call upon the wonderful mind and the advances in science, technology, medicine and other stuff that no other animal has done. I can’t help but recall this wonderful quote:
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more
intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much – the wheel, New York,
wars and so on – whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the
water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that
they were far more intelligent than man – for precisely the same reasons.
I personally believe that we are no different from animals and it has been society, organisations, civilisations and peer pressure that has kept us from being what we truly are. I do not question the ability of our brains (though one could after reading this) or our powers to associate knowledge and develop it into something which is capable of forming the substrate for more associations. What I do question is our innate want to be considered non-animal.
Let us take sex (before it takes us!). According to several surveys, 95% of the Americans have had pre-marital sex. It is not a matter of whether it is good or not but surely a matter of whether it is animal or not. Sex is a purely animal want, like food and rest. To think that Americans (though not necessarily representing the whole of humanity) who take a virginity-pledge (and I wonder when Americans will get over their repulsive want for fame and making things public) are able to abstain for as much as 18 months before they become “sexually active”. Most Americans don’t even consider that abstinence is a part of their value system (which is being rather honest) but they seem to be rather flustered when compared to an animal (try telling someone “You are such an animal”). Most of the advt. that I get to see on TV seem utterly pointless in that I always try to figure out (based on the scenes) as to what the advt. is all about and often fail. Most of the time there would be some interesting looking babe who is absolutely irrelevant to the product being advertised. Sex sells, because it feeds directly into the animal nature that is still the strongest side of us.
Man would kill for food and land and women. He has waged wars for gold and silk. He has looted nations for something as trivial as indigo and tobacco. He has destroyed countries to satiate his ego and to gain a measure of his prowess as well as to demonstrate it. He has ruined vast lands in order to rape the Earth of her resources and build things of convenience for himself. Man can never be satiated because he thinks that being satiated is stagnation, is being trivial, is being an animal. And in order to establish that he is not a mere animal, he will go to any extent and do things that even he never would have wanted – all for an idea. It is an idea that kills man by making him think that he has achieved what others haven’t, what animals can’t.
I am not being a prude here and denouncing sex (why would I?). I am also not saying that we should look down at our toes and only think of math and economics (why would I after having seen and relished this absolutely perfectly proportioned lady in a green salwar kameez, and the most flattering accessories, in the bus yesterday?). What I wish to understand is why are we so anti-animals and why is it that we don’t rise above our animal states after having recognised that in us. There are a couple of aspects to this pondering.
One, I would like to see people realising that they really aren’t as human as they like to believe. We are still driven by the basic instincts that are common to both man and non-man. A lot of what we consider unacceptable would cease to be so once we recognise our motivation behind them. That doesn’t mean we accept them, but just understand them better and see it as it is. Once we know the root of discordant behaviour or practices, we can sort them out better and that is what (if at all anything) makes us “human”. Simply forming a set of rules gets us nowhere and more than rules, creating a bunch of myths and preconceived notions about the human race, is detrimental to our inner growth.
Two, I would like people to realise that growing out of our animal selves is vital to a richer development of society. This cannot be achieved by denouncing our lower self (which we call the animal self) but by transforming it into a nature that is aware of the origins of the animal instincts and has surmounted it (which is the symbolism that is adopted in the Vedic tradition of a god or goddess mounted on an animal vehicle or vahana) by eliminating all possibility of its resurrection. Why do we need that? Because man is the most viral, most wide spread destroyer of things on this Earth. Whatever man touches he touches with the scale and power of plenty which only creates far reaching and often irreversible consequences. Man is the pinnacle of all that is animal and it is vital for him to eradicate it. Other animals have just the required animal instinct in them to see them through their lives without disturbing another’s. Nature in all her power can seamlessly manage all other animals since none of them try to manipulate her. They accept her. Man doesn’t accept anything and feels that it is wrong and demeaning to do so. Hence, he manipulates Nature and the world around him in order to suit his needs (which are transitionary unlike an animal’s need). His greed and his want to be more than other animals including his kind push him to be more destructive (sometimes by being seemingly constructive from another perspective).
The trouble here (in kaliyuga) is that man has become deviant enough to classify things as acceptable and some others as unacceptable. To be greedy is animal like but to want to establish a global conglomerate is ambitious and powerful. To want to bed as many fellow human beings is considered cool, but to do so after marriage is condemnable. To wage wars is manly and ordained, but to discriminate on grounds of race or sex is paltry. What was once a virtue is now a weakness. The trouble is, man has become too heavily dependant on his intellect and considers anything out of its scope as silly and only for lotus-eaters (lotophagi). Ayn Rand added to this.
Man’s intellect is not the problem – depending on it entirely, is. Man’s mind is not a problem – being driven entirely by it, is. Man has not put in the extra effort required to transform the power of the mind into self-sustained rightness. What the mind can achieve, it should and then move further to achieve what it is capable of. By stopping at the easily achievable, there is a lot of stagnation and hence, conflict. With more men wanting more gold, people worked out ways to get it, and the race is still on. Those who can transcend that into a state where the true worth and purpose of gold is realised, are a lot more peaceful and animal-like. So be it with anything else.
I realise that there is too much talk about transformation and transcending and very little about the hard realities of this world. Actually, there has been very little talk about sex (given the post’s title).
I feel education (which is stuff that happens in school and beyond and forever) should contribute to a personal understanding of things in this world, without and within. To spend time with a child and educate them about how bodily changes create urges which are just that, to let them know that there are consequences to be hasty, to help them realise that there is a time and place for everything and sex is not really something that you get over and done with in a few minutes but is something that should form the toppings on a foundation of deep emotional and psychological clarity, to help them realise that it is the emptiness in one’s life that creates a want for entertainment and getting absorbed in them only creates a craving for more thereby disallowing a sense of completeness from developing as one only seeks instant gratification at the cost of more involved and deep endeavours – to let a child realise that (after having realised that ourselves) is vital. To help a child realise that the animal instincts are not wrong or dirty but are essential in a sense, and that we need to work with them in order to not make them overwhelm our capabilities, is the purpose of an integral education. To justify sex or wars or hoarding or drugs or murder or greed or jealousy or ambition will not help beyond ensuring an eventual and rapid destruction of this world and the human fabric.
We are eager to wage debates about whether pre-marital sex is fine or not, but never the question as to whether sex is just an act and are we prepared for it. Marriage was an old ploy in channelising it into creating families and manageable societies. Why do we see more confusion today versus 100 years ago? Why is teen pregnancy an issue now when it was hardly ever heard of few decades ago? Why are there child psychologists in plenty now when they were hardly ever required a few decades ago? Why are rape cases increasing every year? Why is the respect that was given to the institution of a family decreasing every year? Why is all the Independence and freedom of choice that we are granted today not making us a 100 times more happy than what was a few decades ago?
It is very easy to take the effortless path and justify everything as being “natural” and answer all our calls for titillation. It is vital to realise what this drives us to be and look at the world and Nature as a whole. It is vital to give up our myopic outlook of this world (a dead dog on the road also deserves the respect that a dead man receives) and not concern ourselves selfishly only for the next 60-80 years which is of immediate relevance to us. It is important to recognise the animal self in us and then grow from that into something devoid of it. While clinging to it might give us satisfaction now, it doesn’t do so in the long run as maintaining an animal self is very tedious and it needs to be fed regularly because the animal self as such is not an issue, but coupling the animal self with the human mind is a recipe for disaster. The mind will automatically find ways in justifying actions and will strengthen the animal self into becoming something quite human and destructive. One without the other is peaceful and in accordance with Nature’s breath.
14 thoughts on “Sex”
Always your solutions seem to border on a schismed outlook on things – this rule for the animal in me, that rule for the man in me, this rule for society, that rule for emotions, this for family that for friends – you seldom provide solutions that are integral to all the parts of the multidimensional aspects of man.>>Your solution of man either being pure mind or pure animal doesn’t work – we can definitely not go back in evolution to consider certain parts of ourselves as purely animal. WE HAVE TO ALLOW A NON-ANIMAL, NON-MENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS to be the leader of all of ourselves, neither can we be purely Man/Mind because at its best even, we have obvious evidence that the Mind of man is pathetically incapable of coping with anything much at all even with the best of intentions.>>I would say that the solution for man is to find deep inside himself a faculty of consciousness that will harmonise all his various aspects – those that are animal, those that border on the animal, those that are of man/mind. Which will be the binding thread of all in him, which will enable him to transform or transcend the animal or mind in him to an entirely new unknown dimension.>Logically possible methinks. Let’s see whether it is executable.>># The writeup seems a ramble to me – maybe because of the title being quite disconnected with the post except for a single paragraph on what sort of a sex-education need be given to children.>>But, yes, a beautiful chain of thoughts wherein you speak about what is the cause for all troubles that besets mankind, or rather that besets the rest of the world because of man, and with the issue of sex as an example of the animal in man, you have managed to give your own schismed solution to all the problems that mind and body of man together create. Seen this way, I suppose it is not a ramble, but the title is misleading…>># A scintillating mind you have got. I especially liked >>“Man’s intellect is not the problem – depending on it entirely, is. Man’s mind is not a problem – being driven entirely by it, is. Man has not put in the extra effort required to transform the power of the mind into self-sustained rightness. What the mind can achieve, it should and then move further to achieve what it is capable of.”>>This can be done not by the mind’s power – transforming the mind – but a power/faculty/consciousness in him that is greater than the mind (in terms of capacity for rightness, truth, knowledge and light, of course). We have to discover this entity/element in us, and then things will be clearer. Who knows, maybe the animal in us will become of a divine texture, and the mind will become a divine Light, and we won’t feel any need to lead a schizophrenic life of only animal or only mind…>>A pleasure to come to your blog and read such peculiar and insightful thoughts that seem to result from enlightened meditation/contemplation.>>Thank you!
Dear P,>Schismed? Where on earth did you spot that in this post? 😮>I am providing one approach for the human being and not something separate for animals (or the animal in a human being) and something separate for a human being. Point is, I don’t think animals need me!! 😀>I still think that if the human being can return to a state of animalness or transcend all this and be pure consciousness then the world would be a better place. Please understand this in the right sense. >Methinks we both are talking about the same transcending and what the mind and consciousness are capable of… >You seem to compliment by slinging mud!! 😀 You call it rambling but thank me for doing so. You call this rather random and are grateful for my insights!!! >The title was purely to pull in the reader and ensure that “Sex sells” literally!! 😉
😀>‘Rambling’ is because of >1.the title and how little of the post is in tandem with it. >2. the way you talk about all from nature to animals to pure consciousness, all in the name of sex>3. the fact that you could have written all this vis-a-vis other animal needs in man like the need for FOOD, SLEEP etc. I mean, the post and its contents are not exclusive to a particular subject.>>I am not thanking you for the ramble or the randomness that may or maynot be there, but for the sincerity of effort in your thinking, and the insights that it leads you to.>># While at it, I don’t agree with you that animals ACCEPT nature/ or anything at all – they resist and run away from all that they feel are harmful to them, as well as they can; just as man does too. Man does a better job of it, though tsunamis and Katerinas stump him too.. It is just that whatever animals do seems to balance out natures various components, but whatever man does, big or small, sticks out like a sore thumb; not the fault of man nor a virtue in animals, but nature seems to have a distinct aversion to all that is ‘MAN’as man’s thoughts and acts seem to have a conscious hatred against the whole of nature/the grand scheme of things pertaining to earth.>># Again, >“sex is not really something that you get over and done with in a few minutes but is something that should form the toppings on a foundation of deep emotional and psychological clarity” >sounds good enough; but I would have preferred ‘deep emotional and psychological CLARITY’ to have been ‘deep emotional and psychological CONNECT’ because I can have deep psychological and emotional clarity about the superficial enjoyment, the temporal/fleeting but full enjoyment that I may get from the sexual act, as to why I am indulging in it, “I am clear that I am in this job for the money, and I will stick to it for that reason”, is hardly advice one would give a child regarding career choices – “Have a deep emotional and psychological involvement and connection (not just ‘clarity’ as to the ‘why’) with the work you do, with the person you marry, with the person you want to have sex with etc etc”, is a wholesome advice, methinks.>># I think if indiscriminate sex is a crime, then indiscriminate anything is a crime- is it ok to covet in my mind lots of men or women that I find attractive, though I may not consummate the attraction to the sexual act?; is it allright if I am a strong-minded person untouched negatively by my many-pronged sexual relationships, either inside me, or protecting myself from all diseases and damage that result from my promiscuity? >>If you are speaking of sex as a basic animal need in man, does your advice for sex hold good for food too? Eat only what is good for the health/nutrition of the body, of the family, at the right time, right place the right amount (like you say sex is for children/stability is key, where is the emotion there, I wonder)- is that how you would advise about food or sleep too? Purely clinical and an intellectual outlook on the basic animal needs of man?>># There, what a horror! – the rambling disease is contagious, and I have caught it, with less than happy consequences…Anyway, no apologies; after all it is an open blog, getting battered by the ignorant or the wise. Enjoy!
Hi, I drifted in here after a ‘very long time’ *Sheepish grin* Been too busy. Liked what I read – want to comment on impulse – Will NOT. I have one more class to go to. After that, will read once more and then comment 🙂
Hmmm… “Sex Sells” – Yea Right you are about that 🙂>>You’ve given links to two pages – both have nothing much to do with Indians. The reason I say this is because, I find that we Indians tend to ‘Ape’ just about anything … Honestly. Come on, you know I’m telling the truth. Now, why are we looking into American researches about teaching sex with respect to abstinence and non abstinence and the effect it has ? How are we to relate it to our country? >>Here’s a little more info – you actually might know this – Viruses mutate. Viruses and certain other types of micro organisms also develop immunity to anti biotics thereby rendering medecine useless. When we Indians ‘Ape’ a certain aspect of something from another culture, we get a virus – if it were negative – but the beauty of the virus strain we have is that it is mutated when it is absorbed here. >>Was teenage pregnancy a problem – ever – in India? Was rape a problem – so gigantic in India? >>In fact if we were to look deeper in our Vedic books, we will find that ‘women’ were treated with respect. Women once held positions of authority. Women commanded men – not with sex. Man respected the power of the woman to bear his seed, bring it to fruit and nourish it to life … We, come from a land with such rich culture and deep mysticism. >>So deep, they *The ancients* passed it on to the future wrapped in mysteries. >>‘Sex’ – is not an animalistic behaviour. Why do we have sexually explicit postures adorning our places of worship if sex were animalistic? Why do we revere certain animals if being or having animalistic urges were wrong? >>We absorbed viruses from the Moghuls, the Brits and the Americans … Each time the virus mutated to cause greater problems for us. We are so corrupt now, we do not even want to know our origins. You are right when you say man cannot accept … Can you accept that we as Indians have lost touch with our ancients. Forget us Indians – anybody else … any other country …>>As cave men – were we … animalistic? If so, how? If we killed animals for food, animals killed us for food … I only see a difference in names – human / animal. >>Nature – so cunning – for propagation ALL animals, plants have to mate … The only things which do not need another in order to propagate are things like viruses … ALL harmful … Nature made it very clear, you want to live – forever – Mate … You divide and try to live on your own – I *Nature* conquer. The ones which are capapble of reproduction without sex are the ones most undesirable and harmful – if destroyed – destroyed forever. >>This is what I think of sex – I think that sex is a perfectly spiritual and holistic experience. It can be so if and only if the man and woman having sex love and respect each other. >>As for the impulse, the magnetic attraction when one is in puberty … Oh Bhoy! Patience ….>>All of us are brought up with a certain conditioning built-in … that of finding the partner and settling down. So, in that search we all get ensnared by maybe the first kind smile / shy smile / loving touch / suggestive look etc etc etc … If a normal person ends up in bed with a wrong person – s/he knows it to be wrong and is more careful … whatever … (Actually, I think if a person believes in love – its easier) >>Anyway, if a person were to bed with a lot of people – I would not clasify it as animalistic – I’d call him / her perverse. So, what about prostitutes ? Let me put it this way – If there was no market for a product – It would not sell. As long as there is demand, there will be suply.>>I like your argument in your writing – at times I stopped to think … I found it to be Pro animal … After having read it twice – I have to tell you, if I were to subscribe to <><>“While clinging to it might give us satisfaction now, it doesn’t do so in the long run as maintaining an animal self is very tedious and it needs to be fed regularly because the animal self as such is not an issue, but coupling the animal self with the human mind is a recipe for disaster. The mind will automatically find ways in justifying actions and will strengthen the animal self into becoming something quite human and destructive. One without the other is peaceful and in accordance with Nature’s breath.<><> This sincerely troubles me – Wo / Man are brought in with a mind which is both animal and human. Each complements the other. One without the other is like a virus having gottn into the system. Classifying all negative attributes as that of being animal will only help in irresponsible blame shifting and defaming the ‘animal’. No, in accordance with nature and for peaceful co existence I do believe we complement each other – the Human Animal – Its not actually a dangeous species – its an endangered species … Think about it 🙂>>Finally, I find that we have problems >(A) Discussing sex >(B) Having sex with one partner >(C) Finding a meaningful sexual relationship with a life partner >(D) Having No fun in sex with one partner.>>We have problems with such matters simply because we do not Trust, respect and love our partner enough to believe that s/he understands. Even a 13 year old – understands sex ! Man – Marketeer.>>I really got to get to writing ‘something’ on my blog … Ta ta >>There’s nothing animal about sex – its purely human 🙂 MAN glamorised Sex – animal invented sex 🙂 Animal – producer;
Hey, ow did that happen? The last line of my previous comment jumped in between … Ok, Man – marketeer should have been the last line not after – Even a 13 year old understands sex !
Finally, I did write something on my blog – I think you’ll like it 🙂 >>And hey, what happened? No reply ? *Sly grin* Did I really really make you re-think? COOL … *WIcked grin*>>See ya 🙂
I just stop at your blog if I feeling like reading a new book. 🙂 Most of the time comments for the post give more insight than the actual post itself (not to mention lengthier). Nice quote by the way. Isn’t it by Douglas Adams?
# Just a nudge 😀 –>I think it is time for the next post. Maybe a zen koan, maybe even the latter 18 verses for the 18 (36) verses as a homage to the Goddess, maybe a God-Devil dialogue – whatever it is, do put an end to this somnolent gap between two posts.>># I see that other good writers that I patronize are coming back to the blogworld and how! >Very heartening it is. >># Well, hope the weekend brings some activity here.>Wake up, Eroteme!>🙂
Dear P,>I feel that a connect is only possible when there is clarity. Perhaps you are right in saying that connect is preferred as it includes clarity but the converse isn’t true. What is for sex is also true for food, but the familial and sociological implications are different and we cannot deny that. In a monk’s congregation, indiscriminate consumption of food might shock as much as a leaning towards sex.>>Dear A,>I do not think that having animalistic urges is wrong, but not recognising them to be so is not becoming of a human being. I agree that the links are to pages not borne of research on Indians, but I think they are still applicable to us. We don’t do much research anyway!! 😉 As a culture we have been different and very refined. Undoubtedly the rationalist and materialistic cultures of the West have shaken up our system a lot, but that only goes to show that anything that can appeal to the effortless animal self will be easier to accept and follow. The Indian culture laid heavy emphasis on developing the non-animal self and hence, we were able to realise all that the “ancients” had. >I wonder why you call it perverse. Probably the person feels a need only for the physical. What if a person felt the need only for the psychological? The spiritual? Would it still be perverse?>I do not attribute the negative to the animal. On the contrary!! Just yesterday I was speaking to my other self and we couldn’t stop lamenting about the disease that man has become. In your own words, man has become a virus. Look at how he has pervaded everyone’s space with the least consideration and grown indiscriminately. Building concrete structures against Nature’s will (well if it were Her will then she would built them herself ;-), drying wells and building dams, polluting the air with industries and vehicles and cigarettes… Sickening. So I find the animal more beautiful. They have a season for sex, a purpose to be served, a clear choice made of mate. Animals are far more beautiful in nearly every way (even when they hunt, rather, esp.). Hence, I concluded the post with a want for either an entire animal (which would follow Nature’s whim) or entirely non-animal-non-mind (which would understand Nature and hence, follow Nature’s whim).>>Dear S,>I am glad that this blog receives intelligent readers who can pick nuggets from the post and grow it into insightful comments… 🙂>>Dear P,>Posts are out and I will try to make them more regular… 🙂
Dear A,>In response to your comment elsewhere:>If a man loves one woman and she dies, are you saying he cannot and should not find another woman whom he can love? How different is that from divorcing your first love for the next? It is an adult society and things are by mutual consent and without twisting anyone’s arm into loving. If the man forced his love on someone or ruined their life in living his love, then I would call it perverse. If all the woman a man loves, love him equally so and do not find a deficit in his love for them, then there is nothing perverse there, right? Man encroaching on another’s territory without care or concern is perverse, be it in forest land or in another man’s bedroom.>I am afraid that there are only a couple of instances of animals and birds living the notion of a pair for life. There are tonnes of species of animals and birds and a handful cannot be a case though it would be an exception. Man created family and love and marriage. Animals didn’t nor do they plan to!! (Thank god! 🙂>I am definitely pro-animal and pro-mindlessness (which is not a decision but a transformation). How does it matter if there is something pure in the mix or not? I wouldn’t appreciate the purity of cyanide in my mocktail nor the generosity in a man who massacered an entire tribe…>I am sorry, I didn’t get the import of the para starting with “I am one who believes that God” and ending in “is needed”.
🙂 I will reply, but not now. I have to get ready for a couple of special classes. Later this evening or tonight – I’ll reply 🙂
Dear E, *Following your example :)* I am very tired, but I am also quiet stupid when it comes to keeping up my word. Hmmm… So many things you’ve asked me … And I sincerely do not know how else to eloborate on them. Anyway, getting to what you did not get :>>“I am one who believes that God created one for each so that we may learn to be humbly dependant on each other and gentler towards the other’s mistakes. Further, the very fact that one cannot claim to know another so completely and yet yearn for the other so wholly … it takes a lifetime and more for one to even try to comprehend this world and its desire, its will to live and not just exist despite all the damnation carried out in the name of advancement and future. Yet, I see advancement is good is needed.” >>God created this world in such a way that if a species wants to procreate – it has to mate. True there is the odd exception to the rule. Now, lets take the mating process … Very varied. Then, the aging … Long drawn or short. But through it all – its nice to have someone to hold on to, to talk to, to live with. If we give way to indulging in just about every whim and fancy which passes by and label the urge to loose control and cheat on ones mate – it shows a certain lack of virtue. What happens when we break the pact and do this? Children grow up in sorrow. Children do not have a cerain root, a value system. Children are hurt. They miss the smiles of their mother. They experience and know first hand the broken heart of their mother. They grow up to either break hearts or have their own broken hearts nd broken families. ‘Family’ is the basic ‘cell’ of the society. You break that by allowing sorrow and lust to take root – you destroy the society. My point of view 🙂>>You seriously think animals dont have family planning? They have. Only thing is they could not compete against man’s hunting plans! >>Ok, there is much more also written in that para – I really want tp have my sleep – The coming week is hectic – Inter School Debate competetion – Loads to do. Forgive me for telling something and running. >>Before I leave though, I want to comment on one thing you have brought up in your comment – the point about is it perverse if a man marry after divorce / being widowed … Answer is NO. But at the same time, there re people who prefer to be left alone after the death of their significant other. I tend to empathise with the later, but that does not mean I am going to judge another who might like to marry again. No, I’m not like that. When I said perverse, I was reffering to those kind of men who have a wife and yet prey on other women / yong girls – just because they can make a fool of them and get away with it. >>I will get back here 🙂 Some time in between the week and in the week end. Good night 🙂
If we give way to indulging in just about every whim and fancy which passes by and label the urge to loose control and cheat on ones mate – as an ‘Indulgence’ it shows a certain lack of virtue. >>Few more typos but this was very very stupid !>>Not correcting any more – taking advantage of your generous nature to ‘forgive’ *This time a good assumption* >>Ciao 🙂