No, no, no! Please be cautious in your use of programming, programmed, and design, etc. Those words suggest a programer and designer, a theological construct that I (and I’m not alone on this) reject. I know that I’m beating the Darwinian evolution equine, but he’s still galloping, not dead. Our odd sexuality — and even amongst the asexual reproducers — is evolutionary. Not at all by design! Yes, in many species, reproductive activities are pleasurable but, I believe, the desire (!) to procreate is evolutionarily, even unconsciously, innate. As pop culture says, we want to churn out little versions of ourselves (if only because of an unconscious fear of death and a wholly irrational desire to live beyond death). That’s the science behind the continuation of our feeble species, I think.

Genetics. No, again, not programming, yet, though it’s fast becoming possible. What we pass on is our mutated genetic code. Is it random? Sometimes. More often than not, though, we unconsciously select prostitutes and life-partners because they have genetic traits that we find desirable; traits of being well-bred and capable of breeding well. Evolutionarily innate. That’s science. Far from seeking variety, we seek good health and other traits for our potential progeny, going so far as to , again, unconsciously, evaluate the parents of potential life-partners.

Yes, certainly, artists represent and can enhance the ways in which we stumble through our limited lives. But it’s, maybe, just stimuli of our finite consciousness that leads us to enjoy such fabulous distractions.