January 15, 2014

writing : speech :: masturbation : copulation.

That last post, about Bridgegate, ends with some musing about how email and texting are preserving in writing far more of the kind of remarks that used to appear mostly only in speech. Researching a different topic, I stumbled upon a strangely relevant passage in a book (called, of all things, "When Men Are Women: Manhood Among The Gabra Nomads Of East Africa"):
[Jean-Jacques] Rousseau wrote about the difference between speech and writing, and following Plato, he regarded speech as more authentic, present, or real than writing. Writing, in his view, imitated speech but never quite accomplished the interpersonal communication possible with direct speech. Rousseau noticed, however, that he communicated his thoughts more clearly and accurately in writing than in speech: "If I were present" in a conversation, Rousseau wrote, "one would never know what I was worth," since shyness would inhibit his speech (quoted in Derrida 1974:141). It is Derrida who points out the paradox: writing, through a false imitation of speech, is nevertheless truer than speech. Rousseau, Derrida explains, "valorizes and disqualifies writing at the same time" (1974:141). For Rousseau, the relation between writing and speech is much the same as that between masturbation and copulation. Masturbation, like writing, is an imitation motivated by a lack — in this case the lack of a sexual partner. Masturbation is a faint imitation of copulation, but because it represents a "perfect" union between sexual partners, who are in fact one in the same person, masturbation trumps copulation as writing trumps speech. 
The different topic I was researching came up over in the comments to that "growing brain cells through sex" post. Would masturbation work on the brain cells or was it something about sex with a partner? I realized that my assumption that masturbation wouldn't work resonated with really old notions, like the idea that masturbation could make you insane. Researching that, I easily found the Wikipedia article "History of masturbation," and I was fascinated by the line:
The 18th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau saw masturbation as equal to 'mental rape,' and discussed it in both Émile and Confessions. He argued that it was the corrupting influence of society that led to such unnatural acts as masturbation and that humans living a simple life amidst nature would never do such things.
So many strange ideas. So many potential connections. Think about them, write about them, talk about them here in writing. We might grow some brain cells.

87 comments:

mccullough said...

Hume was so much better a philosopher than Rousseau. Anyway, it's better for the Noble Savage to masturbate than rape.

Ann Althouse said...

Rousseau said masturbation was a kind of rape and that in a pure state of nature there would be no masturbation. It's civilization that drives us to masturbate.

mccullough said...

In a pure state of nature, there was a lot of rape. Not a good thing. Civilization equals less rape. At least I hope so.

YoungHegelian said...

For Rousseau, the relation between writing and speech is much the same as that between masturbation and copulation.

Uhhhm, what? Does JJR ever say that, anywhere? Or, is that one of those deconstructive leaps of "performative reading" insight we've heard so much about?

JJR, while quite the bounder in his own personal life, had quite a Calvinistic streak in him when it came to how other people were supposed to live theirs.

Rob said...

I believe it was Hobbes who said that in the state of nature, the penis was nasty, brutish and short.

mccullough said...

writing:speech :: sex: oral sex

Jack Wayne said...

Rousseau is not worth commenting on. So we have a conundrum - without writing he is not worth writing about who knows he is not worth writing about?

Match that Derrida.

YoungHegelian said...

I also remember Rousseau, from where I don't remember, complaining about his "selfish" tendency to fantasize about sex with woman B while having sex with woman A. Why wasn't one real woman enough for him? Why did he feel the desire to add an imaginary one to the deed?

It's interesting to see how, in Rousseau's imagined post-natural morality, civilization plays the role of original sin. His "state of nature" is much like Nature in the Garden of Eden before the Fall.

Inga said...

If masturbation is unnatural, why do monkeys do it? Perhaps he's not getting any action because of being the low status monkey in the troupe. Those monkeys are just too civilized.

Sean Gleeson said...

Rousseau : Hume :: Lena Dunham : Althouse

Sigivald said...

Did Rousseau say anything that wasn't bogglingly wrong?

(Rousseau was, for instance, wrong about the "pure state of nature", since other primates and indeed non-primates, masturbate.)

Archie said...

If I may:Rousseau: Hume: Lena Dunham :Sandra Fluke: Althouse

rhhardin said...

When does a Jewish man stop masturbating?

When his wife dies.

YoungHegelian said...

We need to cut Rousseau some slack here on taking his "state of nature" as referring to an empirical state of Nature.

Rousseau was the last classical modern philosopher to posit a "state of nature" and then to develop his political thought from that postulated premise. Since Rousseau's, Hobbes' & Locke's state of nature were so different from each other, whatever was the nature of this rhetorical device, I think it's safe to say that neither he nor his contemporary readership thought they were reading a text on Natural Philosophy.

Dr Weevil said...

If monkeys do it, that makes it OK for humans? Monkeys throw crap. Is that OK for humans? Wait a minute, I think I'm on the verge of a deep thought . . . that would explain some of our nastier trolls.

Dr Weevil said...

Don't chimps sometimes kill and eat each other's babies? Anyone else think that might be an objection to the 'monkeys do it, so it's natural, so humans can do it, too' argument?

Inga said...

Someone needs remedial biology. Humans= primates. Moneys= primates. Who said anything about it being OK for humans? As we all know, masturbation causes blindness, put that thing down, now!

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr Weevil said...

So when Inga wrote "If masturbation is unnatural, why do monkeys do it?" she wasn't saying it's OK for humans? When people say something is natural, that's usually what they mean. So just how stupid and/or hypocritical is Inga? (That's a rhetorical question: we already know the answer.)

n.n said...

I would imagine that Rousseau was right. In a natural state, we would have less leisure time, which means that our actions would be more productive. So, sex would be for reproductive purposes. Rest would be in preparation for work and survival.

The paradox of civilization is that it promotes a dissociation of risk, which is a principal sponsor of corruption. Civilization is an artificial circumvention of natural feedbacks, which would otherwise moderate our behavior. Some people are capable of greater self-control than others.

Most notably, abortion was normalized for two reasons. One, to satisfy women and men's demand and desire for sex, money, and ego gratification. Two, to satisfy the state's demand and desire for money and control. An expectation of civilized behavior has lead to the development of liberal behavior and abuses of redistributive change, as well as the progress of domination which is inherent to that process.

Inga said...

My but you are a funny little monkey Weevil. If you want to consider it unnatural feel free.

Dr Weevil said...

I offered no opinion as to whether masturbation is natural for humans. I simply pointed out, with one probative example, that 'monkeys do it, so it must be OK for humans' is a really stupid argument. Can Inga handle simple logic? Apparently not.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Weevil, It's a natural act that is harmless to humans and monkeys. Relax.

Dr Weevil said...

Sorry: two probative examples. Monkeys throw crap and eat each others' babies. Does Inga take them as models for her own behavior? Can she even comprehend the very simple point of my very simple argument?

n.n said...

Dr Weevil:

Some humans mimic simian behaviors. They murder, rape, and even consume human flesh. The notable difference between simians, simian derivatives, and humans, is that the last is assumed capable of greater self-control than the others. This is the basis of morality, which is different than the emergent behavior exhibited by lower forms of life, including: simians (e.g. monkeys), and simian derivatives.

Inga said...

I'm making fun of you, you silly Weevil. Now stop spanking that poor monkey.

Dr Weevil said...

Odd that so many lefties will accuse righties of getting sexually aroused by political things. It had never occurred to me that that was even possible - I can think of few things less sexy than politics - until I read accusations like Inga's. I suppose it tells us something very nasty about Inga and some of her comrades that they're so willing to try to degrade the right sexually. What a pathetic little pervert she is.

FullMoon said...

YoungHegelian said...

I also remember Rousseau, from where I don't remember, complaining about his "selfish" tendency to fantasize about sex with woman B while having sex with woman A.


When I have sex with Victorias' Secret models, I fantasize about sex with my wife. Keeps me grounded

Inga said...

Now I'm "degrading the right sexually"? I'm a pervert because I say masturbation is natural to humans and monkeys?

Weevil, I rarely make this accusation, but you seem drunk or high....or something.

Dr Weevil said...

No, shithead, you're degrading yourself and trying to degrade me by suggesting that I'm masturbating as I comment here. When I first read some leftie's accusation years ago that righties 'get a hard-on' from bombing Iraq or listening to Rumsfeld speeches or reading about Gitmo or whatever, I was stunned. My reaction was "Are there really people in the world who are sexually aroused by politics?" Literature, movies, art, maybe, but poltics??? And then I realized that there must be such people, that the ones making the accusation must know from personal experience that such people exist, because they are such people.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: on the internet, everyone knows if you're a dog - or a crap-throwing monkey, or a perv like Inga.

Inga said...

Weevil.
LOL! It was word play you loon. Now you are becoming tedious, go bother Sigivald.

Dr Weevil said...

Yes, it's so tedious to be shown up as a foul-minded moron over and over. Maybe you should try, just once, to stop being one.

Inga said...

Weevil, are you humorously challenged? Don't get jokes or word play, fly off the handle because of perceived slights? Do you represent "the right", I hope not. I always though folks here actually had a keen sense of humor. You however are a sad sack.

I feel like I've entered the Twilight Zone, or maybe the Planet of the Apes.

Dr Weevil said...

Now not laughing at Inga's nasty and very stupid jokes = not having a sense of humor? The only ape in this comment thread is Inga, still throwing crap and expecting us all to laugh. And still unable to answer a simple question about her logical argument. It's so tedious being expected to argue like a humand and an adult.

Inga said...



Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree,
Discussing matters as they ought to be.

Said one to the others, "now listen, you two,
There's a certain rumor that can't be true;

That man descended from our noble race.
The very idea is a disgrace.

No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.

And you've never known a mother monk
to leave her babies with others to bunk,

Or pass them on from one to the other
'til they scarely know who is their mother.

And another thing you'll never see-
A monkey build a fence around a coconut tree.

And let the coconuts go to waste,
to keep others monkeys from having a taste.

Why, if I put a fence around a tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me.

And here's something else a monkey won't do-
Go out at night and get on a stew;

Or use a gun, a club or knife
To take some other monkey's life.

Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss-
BUT BROTHER, HE DIDN'T DESCEND FROM US !!!!!"

William said...

Is there any truth to the rumor that vaginal orgasms produce more brain cells than clitoral orgasms? Everything old is new again.

Inga said...

Robert William Service - The Ape And I

Said a monkey unto me:
"How I'm glad I am not you!
See, I swing from tree to tree,
Something that you cannot do.
In gay greenery I drown;
Swift to skyey hights I scale:
As you watch me hang head down
Don't you wish you had a tail?

"Don't you wish that you could wear
In the place of stuffy clothes,
Just a silky coat of hair,
Never shoes to cramp your toes?
Never need to toil for bread,
Round you nuts and fruit and spice;
And with palm tuft for a bed
Happily to crack your lice?"

Said I: "You are right, maybe:
Witting naught of wordly woe,
Gloriously you are free,
And of death you nothing know.
Envying your monkey mind,
Innocent of blight and bale,
As I touch my bald behind
How I wish I had a tail!"

So in toils of trouble caught,
Oft I wonder with a sigh
If that blue-bummed ape is not
Happier than I?

Robert William Service

Dr Weevil said...

Apparently Inga doesn't know that chimpanzees practice infanticide and cannibalism, even after she's been told on this very thread. Unteachable.

Inga said...

[ edit poem ]
Grumpy Monkey

What a grumpy monkey you are
The grumpiest of monkeys I’ve seen by far
Have they taken your bananas, stolen your grapes?
Is that the reason you’re the grumpiest of apes?
 
You are usually quite mellow, not pent up with rage
But wait……..are you running free, or stuck in a cage?
For if you are not running wild and free
Then it is little wonder it’s a grumpy monkey I see
 
Or is there something more profound on your mind?
Like the state of the world run by mankind
Forests are dwindling and not in great shape
Maybe the world would be better if run by an ape
 
While sitting in judgement sat staring at me
Don’t judge all mankind by the world that you see
For just like monkeys there are good and there’s bad
That we can’t work together, is that why you’re sad?

Gary Wayne Hill

Dr Weevil said...

Poor Inga keeps throwing the crap while pretending that someone else is the monkey here. Pitiful.

Inga said...

Weevil, what the hell does monkey or human infanticide have to do with the harmless act of masturbation in primates? Just WHAT is your argument? The more you continue on in this vein, the stranger you sound. Because I said masturbation is natural in primates. It does not follow that I also mean that everything in nature is acceptable activity in humans. You have created some weird straw monkey and expect me to argue with you as IF you were a rational human being?

That is why I am making fun of you, your argument is hysterical and you are being ridiculous.

Dr Weevil said...

Yes, Inga, your argument is quite simple, and quite stupid. Here's what you said:

1. Monkeys masturbate.
2. Therefore, it's natural.
3. Therefore, it's OK if humans do it, too.

Have you figured out yet that your argument would also prove that infanticide, rape, and cannibalism are also OK for humans, because monkeys do all that, too?

It's called a reductio ad absurdum. I have demonstrated, with examples, that 'monkeys do it, so it's OK if humans do it, too' is a stupid stupid argument.

Am I saying that masturbation is wrong for humans? No, of course not. I'm simply pointing out that your argument to support that position is stupid. I don't think anyone else on this site has had any trouble figuring out that it's a stupid argument. Why can't you? Because you're too busy trying to degrade and debase anyone who disagrees with you to argue in good faith? Or because you're a moron? Your choice.

Inga said...

But you silly little monkey, that is not what I said at all, THAT is what YOU think I said. YOU created a straw monkey and then expected me to defend YOUR straw monkey. What a loon.

Dr Weevil said...

Poor Inga is too stupid to delete her 6:05 comment, which begins "If masturbation is unnatural, why do monkeys do it?" That is the argument she made, and now it's too late to delete it. Oh well, perhaps she really is too stupid to understand her own argument.

Inga said...

Weevil,
It's truly amazing that you think you can create an argument FOR me and then expect me to defend the argument you CREATED. It wasn't MY argument to begin with and all along, talk about bad faith. Or you are a weirdo who projected meaning onto my original statment, for whatever strange reason.

Dr Weevil said...

Poor Inga thinks that words don't have meanings, or that her words have whatever meanings she care to assign to them. She seems to have stumbled into making an argument that even she doesn't understand, even when it's explained to her. If she can't communicate like a rational human rather than a crap-throwing monkey, maybe she should shut up and go away and leave the argument to the grownups.

Inga said...

Weevil.
For the last time dumbass, it's a natural act that primates engage in, having said that, this DOES NOT mean that ALL activities primates engage in are OK. If you truly did not understand that, I suspect you may be on the Autism scale somewhere.

You made a monkey out of yourself.

Inga said...

And Weevil, you assigned meaning to my statment most RATIONAL human primates would NOT have. You have shown yourself to be irrational and unable to understand a fairly simple sentence at face value. I wonder what kind of person goes out of their way to argue a staw monkey all night.

I've wasted enough of my time with you, loon.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

I am not clear on what's going on here. Could you please restate your position Inga and Dr Weevil?

Thank you in advance.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Inga said...

Buckley, Weevil says bad monkeys and humans who masturbate, tear the heads off their babies and then eat them.

( snark)

Dr Weevil said...

Inga's position is that masturbation is OK for humans because monkeys do it, too, but she can't handle the fact that monkeys do lots of things that are NOT OK for humans, as she now admits.

Why she brought up monkeys at all, I do not know. I guess because if she'd said that masturbartion is OK because masturbation is OK, it would have been obvious that she was just expressing an opinion - one that most of us share, of course - when she wanted to pretend to be all scientific and feel superior to people like the Pope, who don't much approve of masturbation.

As usual, she's more interested in flinging the crap than actually arguing like a rational human being. Funny that she thinks that makes other people monkeys: an obvious case of projection?

Inga said...

Weevil misrepresents what I said, in order to argue, or he's nuts, or he likes looking like a monkey's ass.

CStanley said...

Strange analogy. Do people only write for themselves? Why would he think it not a two person activity, even if the reader isn't experiencing it contemporaneously?

If I were asked to pair those things, I'd probably reverse it- because writing creates something permanent (like procreative sex) that outlives its creator.

Dr Weevil said...

Drawing the logical conclusion of someone's argument, and refuting it with a reductio ad absurdum, is not 'misrepresentation'. Inga is simply lying when she says that, unless she is so stupid that she couldn't make it past the second week of Logic 101. Her choice.

Inga said...

"If masturbation is unnatural, why do monkeys do it? Perhaps he's not getting any action because of being the low status monkey in the troupe. Those monkeys are just too civilized."

1/15/14, 6:05 PM

No rational, reasonable person could twist my comment into the pretzel Weevil has. My conclusion on this monkey business is, that he is bananas.

Dr Weevil said...

Poor Inga quotes her own argument (1st sentence), her own nasty and unfunny 'joke' (2nd sentence), and her own meaningless non sequitur (3rd sentence) as if she's still not ashamed of them. Amazing.

Inga said...

Loony monkey.

Carl said...

Derrida writing on Rousseau is like one schizophrenic psychoanalyzing another, a turducken of bullshit-stuffed bullshit

Steven said...

So when Inga wrote "If masturbation is unnatural, why do monkeys do it?" she wasn't saying it's OK for humans?

No, she wasn't.

When people say something is natural, that's usually what they mean

See, here's your unwarranted assumption. Yes, some particularly stupid people mistake "natural" for "right". This does not mean you can go around assuming that's what people everyone means when they say something is natural.

Bob Boyd said...

Popeye the Sailor chose a simple life and was a natural man, yet his girl friend's name was Olive Oil and his forearms were clearly over-developed.
Draw your own conclusions.

Dr Weevil said...

So, Steven, what did she mean when she wrote that? She's demonstrated she's incapable of expressing it, why don't you try? What argument do you think she was making? Why bring in monkeys at all when arguing whether something is natural for humans?

chickenlittle said...

Monkeys masturbate freely in public, apparently because they feel no shame.

Why is that?

Mitch H. said...

tl;dr summary: Rousseau was a loon with some damned goofy ideas.

Rousseau said masturbation was a kind of rape and that in a pure state of nature there would be no masturbation.

Yeah, in a state of nature, it'd be all rape, all the time. Well, until a tiger ate both aggressor and victim in mid-coitus.

If masturbation is unnatural, why do monkeys do it?

The answer there probably is "Rousseau never saw a monkey in a state of nature". And he'd blame the masturbating monkeys he *may* have seen on their state of captivity, aka "civilization". Rousseau seemed to equate "nature" with heaven or the Garden of Eden, and had seen no more of nature than he had of heaven or the Garden.

Inga said...

Weevil, still trying to speak for others.

Monkeysplainin'.

Dr Weevil said...

Monkeys can't explain themselves, and neither can Igna. Of course they have to have others explain their disgusting habits for them. And of course they continue to fling their crap at anyone within range. It's what they do. I wish Igna wouldn't make such a public spectacle out of enjoying herself in unseemly ways while embarrassing the rest of us.

Peter said...

All peoples have speech, yet not all peoples have had writing.

Speech is apparently innate in humans, but writing is a (communications) technology- like radio, phones, Internet.

It follows that in Rousseau's "state of nature" one would have what is innate but not what is invented (i.e., technology). Therefore if Rousseau is not to contradict himself he must despise writing as a corruption of the Edenic natural state- independently of the "writing : speech :: masturbation : copulation" analogy.

Whether the analogy is apt depends on the extent to which writing is truly a solitary activity. The analogy might apply to diaries and other personal journals that are not meant to be read by anyone other than the author but, in general, writing is a communications technology in that most writing is intended to be read by others.

If writing is masturbatory then it must be a form of masturbation that is intended to be viewed by a vast audience. Yet since most masturbation is a private act, does this not weaken (if not invalidate) the analogy?

And when can we expect to see this analogy on the SAT/GRE/LSAT/MCAT, etc?





Robert Cook said...

"[Jean-Jacques] Rousseau wrote about the difference between speech and writing, and following Plato, he regarded speech as more authentic, present, or real than writing. Writing, in his view, imitated speech but never quite accomplished the interpersonal communication possible with direct speech."

French writer Louis-Ferdinand Celine(an inspiration for the beats--none of whom were fit to shine his shoes, with only Burroughs coming closest), wrote in a famously elliptical, emotional, and exclamatory style. Many confused his prose with spontaneous outbursts, but he very carefully composed and calibrated his prose, all in purpose to presenting in written form the profane, informal, coarse and expressive slang-ridden language of French as spoken.

William said...

There's a Venn overlap in the behavior of monkeys and humans. But morality is part of human behavior. It shapes, distorts, and sometimes elevates our behavior. I read the wiki article. The moralists seem to have gotten masturbation wrong during the past few hundred years. We're now agreed that it's a rather harmless activity, but should not be engaged in while in public places. Future generations of moralists may refine or coarsen our attitude further.

Inga said...

OK, now I get it, Weevil's vision has become so impaired because of um, well you know, that he MISREAD my comment. Oh poor little whanker.

Dr Weevil said...

Poor Igna can't figure out the contradiction between insisting (as she does) that (a) there's absolutely nothing wrong with masturbation, and (b) anyone who proves her wrong in an argument is a nasty filthy masturbator. Not only a foul-minded troll, she's an unusually stupid one.

Inga said...

Well Weevil, that coming from an austitic, visually impaired Whanker Monkey, I must simply say, consider the source, lol.

You should feel incredibly foolish by now, that is if you were normal.

Dr Weevil said...

Igna thinks if she keeps calling other people wanking monkeys, she will cease to be one herself. Igna thinks if she calls other people abnormal, she will somehow turn normal herself. Igna desperately needs professional help.

Inga said...

No Weevil, not OTHER people, just YOU. Have you asked yourself yet why no one here has come to your defense?

Inga said...

Weevil.
Please stop embarrassing yourself, I sense you are a man who values feeling respected. Why have you gone so far out on a limb to defend what YOU projected on to my original statment? I have corrected you, made fun of you, now you make me feel sorry for you. This is where I jump off this tree.

Dr Weevil said...

Poor stupid Igna hasn't noticed that no one has come to her defense, either. I didn't 'project' anything onto her statement, I pointed out that it's logic was faulty, and refuted it with a simple reductio ad absurdum. She keeps projecting monkeyness and masturbation on me, and then pretends that I'm the nasty one? She 'senses' that I 'value feeling respected' - who doesn't? - while writing things that sink far below the level of mere disrespect? Poor Igna: she's so transparent.

B said...

Have you asked yourself yet why no one here has come to your defense?

Ummm, because he doesn't need it?

glenn said...

Roussea was a cheese eating surrender monkey. Pass it on.

Inga said...

"So when Inga wrote "If masturbation is unnatural, why do monkeys do it?" she wasn't saying it's OK for humans?"
--------------------------
No, she wasn't.

When people say something is natural, that's usually what they mean

See, here's your unwarranted assumption. Yes, some particularly stupid people mistake "natural" for "right". This does not mean you can go around assuming that's what people everyone means when they say something is natural."

1/16/14, 4:10 AM
---------------------------
Optimal word " stupid".

Dr Weevil said...

Perhaps if Igna were to explain why she mentioned monkeys, all of us 'stupid' people could see what she was trying (and failing) to say.

Inga said...

No Weevil, no one else here is stupid, just you.

B said...

You misused the term 'optimal'. What you probably meant to say was 'operative' word, not 'optimal' word.

It appeared to me that Stephen was taking Dr Weevil to task for his prose conflating 'everyone' with the particularly stupid people who equate natural with right. Painting with too wide a brush as it were. As I read it, it was not at all flattering to you ( as to whom that operative word was being applied to).

It would be clarifying if Stephen were to check back and ad a bit more detail to his comment because there is room for some interpretation. Until that time you might want to read Stephen's comment again and perhaps not step off with it so readily.

Inga said...

Monkey see, monkey do.

B said...

Yes. I've noticed that over time with you. In the good german 'nature' I guess.

Steven said...

As I do not purport to be able to read minds, I cannot be certain what Inga (who, I note, I've never particularly gotten along with) meant when she pointed out masturbation is natural.

However, if I had posted that statement, my whole end would have been to mock the full-of-shit Jean-Jacques Rousseau. After all, Rousseau's views were the originating context.

That chimpanzees not just masturbate, but also murder and rape, seriously undermines Rousseau's claims that civilization (by which, if you read him, Rousseau meant the invention of property by humans) causes these in humans. Which is, of course, even clearer when one considers the case of actual hunter-gatherer "savages", who also do all these things.

William said...

I don't comment on the merits of their respective arguments, but the argument itself seems a stylized way of flinging poo. So civilization has its uses. Whatever the chains and repressions of civilization, we don't have to waste a lot of time washing poo out of our hair.