"I don't understand that there is a middle ground between asexuality and my own sexuality, because I see the world in black and white" - You.
Saying that someone is "deficient" simply because they are different to you is enormously offensive AND illogical. I don't see why you can't see that.
I called that person an "idiot" because they said that someone who does not need sex is deficient, which is by all counts an idiotic thing to say. It's not that I dislike those opinions, it's that they are so obviously wrong.
By your logic, if my doctor finds that I have a tumour and he diagnoses me with cancer, then the doctor is an idiot and he is offensive and illogical. If I am blind and my doctor tells me that I am disabled, I should be offended because he does not respect my unique way of being a human being. If my sexologist finds out that I have no sexual needs, he can diagnose me with a diagnosis. That´s all. Think about it - your opinions might be so obviously wrong and I will not call you an idiot. Maybe you lack two things - sexual needs and education about biology/physiology/psychology etc.
I'm going to quit arguing with you about the first point. "Sexually deficient" is not a merely medical term, it is also an insult in the same way that calling someone "retarded" is both a medical term and an insult. It is not the being diagnosed that is the insult, it is the insult that is the insult. If you can't understand that calling someone "sexually deficient" is offensive, I have no hope of explaining that to you.
Having no sexual needs IS NOT AN ILLNESS. Asexuality IS NOT AN ILLNESS. Hyper-sexuality IS NOT AN ILLNESS. Being somewhere in the middle IS NOT AN ILLNESS. You can't diagnose someone with something that IS NOT AN ILLNESS. These things are not illnesses, they are individual differences.
Desires, no matter how strong, are not needs. Needs are something that MUST happen. The world will not explode if I fail to have sex. I will not die. That may not be the way for some people, but for something to be a NEED it MUST be UNIVERSAL. Sex is NOT a universal need, as proven by myself.
Thanks for sharing your private medical wisdom. Diagnostic manuals of medical doctors are very different from your views but it is OK.
"Sex is not a universal need, as proven by myself." - well, then a blind person might say "eye sight is not a universal human sense, as proven by myself." In fact, my opinion is that sight can be called a human sense (and also hearing, taste, smell...) in spite of the existence of people who are blind or deaf. I strongly believe that you would also object to calling a blind person ill. Not everybody can see, so it is not a universal experience, so we cannot speak about health or illness here... Funny medical wisdom...
What your case proves is only that you MIGHT fulfil the diagnostic criteria of hypoactive sexual desire disorder. However, if your sexual needs are not met by your partner, then if you masturbate, your case can prove that you have sexual needs, e.g. you need sexual relief via masturbation. If you do not need any form of sexual relief, then you do not have sexual needs and medical textbooks and diagnostic manuals can be legitimately used to diagnose you with a dysfunction.
You are building a straw man argument and twisting my words. The blind man would be right to say that sight is not a need. It is, like sex, something that can enrich your life greatly, but not a universal need. That is not to say sight is not a gift that makes many people's lives better than they would have been without it, but it is not a need as it is not a universal need.
My case proves nothing of that sort. When I want sex but cannot get it, I masturbate. That is not in any way indicative of having sexual needs. I do not "need" sexual relief when I am frustrated. The relief is pleasurable and, well... relieving, but it is not a strict necessity. I could live without it - in some discomfort maybe, but my life would be bearable. To say that masturbating when you want to means you have "sexual needs" is as ridiculous as to say that riding the bus when you want to means you have "bus needs".
You are coming at this issue from a medical standpoint. I can coming at this issue from a philosophical, personal standpoint. I don't understand how even an infinite amount of medical knowledge can define whether or not something is a "need", because "needs" are subjective and personal to the individual and the individual alone. You may speak as much as you like about health or illness, but all you're doing is moving further away from the argument we started at. What may be bearable for me may not be bearable for someone else.
I did not want to say that sight is a need, of course sight is sense, not need. I used this example to illustrate that we can say that people have sight as one of their senses even if some people are blind, i.e. they do not see or they have their sight dysfunctional. The same goes for needs - we can speak about sexual needs even if some people as you do not have these needs or have sexual dysfunctions. I did not want to say that sight is a need. I just wanted to say that even sight is not univeral (some people lack it) and it still makes sense to speak about people having five senses... The same about needs: we can speak about needs even if some people lack them.
If we decide to speak about different things or words, e.g. needs, from philosophical standpoint, then there is a danger that each of us will define the same word "needs" differently and the discussion will be confusing and absurd. You will use the term in line with your subjective definition and I will use it in line with my subjective definition. That is why I stick to "objective" definition of needs from medical / scientific viewpoint - of course it can change over the years but unless we want to use our "private languages" (Wittgenstein was aware of the absurdities of private language which he considered impossible), we can use the terms as they are used nowadays.
Also, I think deciding that "sexual needs" covers any form of sexual relief in including masturbation is a massive leap, and completely changes the meaning of the question.
Sexual needs?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
"If I do not like your opinions or if I cannot understand them because I am asexual, then I will call you an idiot."
Deprived Of Manhood, d.o.m.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
"I don't understand that there is a middle ground between asexuality and my own sexuality, because I see the world in black and white" - You.
Saying that someone is "deficient" simply because they are different to you is enormously offensive AND illogical. I don't see why you can't see that.
I called that person an "idiot" because they said that someone who does not need sex is deficient, which is by all counts an idiotic thing to say. It's not that I dislike those opinions, it's that they are so obviously wrong.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
By your logic, if my doctor finds that I have a tumour and he diagnoses me with cancer, then the doctor is an idiot and he is offensive and illogical. If I am blind and my doctor tells me that I am disabled, I should be offended because he does not respect my unique way of being a human being. If my sexologist finds out that I have no sexual needs, he can diagnose me with a diagnosis. That´s all. Think about it - your opinions might be so obviously wrong and I will not call you an idiot. Maybe you lack two things - sexual needs and education about biology/physiology/psychology etc.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I'm going to quit arguing with you about the first point. "Sexually deficient" is not a merely medical term, it is also an insult in the same way that calling someone "retarded" is both a medical term and an insult. It is not the being diagnosed that is the insult, it is the insult that is the insult. If you can't understand that calling someone "sexually deficient" is offensive, I have no hope of explaining that to you.
Having no sexual needs IS NOT AN ILLNESS. Asexuality IS NOT AN ILLNESS. Hyper-sexuality IS NOT AN ILLNESS. Being somewhere in the middle IS NOT AN ILLNESS. You can't diagnose someone with something that IS NOT AN ILLNESS. These things are not illnesses, they are individual differences.
Desires, no matter how strong, are not needs. Needs are something that MUST happen. The world will not explode if I fail to have sex. I will not die. That may not be the way for some people, but for something to be a NEED it MUST be UNIVERSAL. Sex is NOT a universal need, as proven by myself.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thanks for sharing your private medical wisdom. Diagnostic manuals of medical doctors are very different from your views but it is OK.
"Sex is not a universal need, as proven by myself." - well, then a blind person might say "eye sight is not a universal human sense, as proven by myself." In fact, my opinion is that sight can be called a human sense (and also hearing, taste, smell...) in spite of the existence of people who are blind or deaf. I strongly believe that you would also object to calling a blind person ill. Not everybody can see, so it is not a universal experience, so we cannot speak about health or illness here... Funny medical wisdom...
What your case proves is only that you MIGHT fulfil the diagnostic criteria of hypoactive sexual desire disorder. However, if your sexual needs are not met by your partner, then if you masturbate, your case can prove that you have sexual needs, e.g. you need sexual relief via masturbation. If you do not need any form of sexual relief, then you do not have sexual needs and medical textbooks and diagnostic manuals can be legitimately used to diagnose you with a dysfunction.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
You are building a straw man argument and twisting my words. The blind man would be right to say that sight is not a need. It is, like sex, something that can enrich your life greatly, but not a universal need. That is not to say sight is not a gift that makes many people's lives better than they would have been without it, but it is not a need as it is not a universal need.
My case proves nothing of that sort. When I want sex but cannot get it, I masturbate. That is not in any way indicative of having sexual needs. I do not "need" sexual relief when I am frustrated. The relief is pleasurable and, well... relieving, but it is not a strict necessity. I could live without it - in some discomfort maybe, but my life would be bearable. To say that masturbating when you want to means you have "sexual needs" is as ridiculous as to say that riding the bus when you want to means you have "bus needs".
You are coming at this issue from a medical standpoint. I can coming at this issue from a philosophical, personal standpoint. I don't understand how even an infinite amount of medical knowledge can define whether or not something is a "need", because "needs" are subjective and personal to the individual and the individual alone. You may speak as much as you like about health or illness, but all you're doing is moving further away from the argument we started at. What may be bearable for me may not be bearable for someone else.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
-
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
See More Comments =>
I did not want to say that sight is a need, of course sight is sense, not need. I used this example to illustrate that we can say that people have sight as one of their senses even if some people are blind, i.e. they do not see or they have their sight dysfunctional. The same goes for needs - we can speak about sexual needs even if some people as you do not have these needs or have sexual dysfunctions. I did not want to say that sight is a need. I just wanted to say that even sight is not univeral (some people lack it) and it still makes sense to speak about people having five senses... The same about needs: we can speak about needs even if some people lack them.
If we decide to speak about different things or words, e.g. needs, from philosophical standpoint, then there is a danger that each of us will define the same word "needs" differently and the discussion will be confusing and absurd. You will use the term in line with your subjective definition and I will use it in line with my subjective definition. That is why I stick to "objective" definition of needs from medical / scientific viewpoint - of course it can change over the years but unless we want to use our "private languages" (Wittgenstein was aware of the absurdities of private language which he considered impossible), we can use the terms as they are used nowadays.
Also, I think deciding that "sexual needs" covers any form of sexual relief in including masturbation is a massive leap, and completely changes the meaning of the question.