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.
Why must the two be mutually exclusive? I don't understand what you mean by "a sense, not a need". Maybe it would help if you gave your definition of a "need". I don't think a medical standpoint is any more objective than any other though.
Anyway, all I really believe is that we can't talk about the need for sex or sexual relief in the same way that we talk about, for example, the need for oxygen. The need for sex or sexual relief is not universal (whether you regard the people who do not have this need to be "dysfunctional" is beside the point. Dysfunctional or not, they are people therefore they count), and the lack of this "need" being fulfilled will not directly result in death (again, it might result in death indirectly from suicide, but that is not caused by the lack of sex/sexual relief but the lack of *ability to cope* with lack of sex/sexual relief).
I'll boil down what I believe to this, to keep it simple: The drive for sexual relief is undoubtedly something that most people have. The need for sexual relief is something that some people may have, but this is entirely dependent on your definition of "need". The need for sex is something that very, very few people have, if any at all, and is also dependent on the definition of "need".
Basics of biology, lesson one:
1.Animals have sexual needs (in some species manifested especially during certain seasons, in others over the period of their fertility). If you castrate an animal, its sexual needs will not be manifested so strongly or at all.
2.Homo sapiens is animal species.
3.Needs are not defined as something without which an individual will die immediately but as something which is necessary for the survival of the individual OR for the species (therefore sexual needs etc...) or which is necessary for healthy development of an individual of the particular species. As for the definition of health, probably the most widely accepted is the definition by World Health Organisation.
(Analogy with hunger / food - it is a need, some people have eating disorders or digestive illnesses and these individuals do not feel hunger which does not mean that hunger is not a need when we speak about homo sapiens as a species. The same goes about sex, just we do not speak about eating disorders here but about sexual dysfunctions).
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.
I do not think it changes anything so dramatically. It is not such a huge leap. The key point is: people have sexual needs that can be satisfied by different ways, these ways may include masturbation (for example if these sexual needs are not satisfied by sexual activity with a sexual partner or when masturbation is preferred by the person or when it is the only available way or it can be used as a substitute etc...there are many ways how we can include masturbation without changing the fact that people have sexual needs. I mean "people" as "homo sapiens" / biological species but of course not each and every individual human being has this feature developed to the same degree.
It absolutely is a huge change. The change in a topic from "the need for one specific type of sexual relief (sex)" to "the need for any type of sexual relief including masturbation" is a huge one. It becomes obvious with the revealing of that fact that the vast majority of people do not need sex at all, but sexual relief in any of its forms. Of course one does not need sex, if one can find sexual relief through other paths.
Maybe I just misunderstood your initial question; I was under the impression that you intended "sexual needs" to mean "a need for sex" rather than "a need for sexual relief" (which I still dispute is a "need", but much less strongly so).
Sexual needs?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
-
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
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.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"sight is sense, not need"
Why must the two be mutually exclusive? I don't understand what you mean by "a sense, not a need". Maybe it would help if you gave your definition of a "need". I don't think a medical standpoint is any more objective than any other though.
Anyway, all I really believe is that we can't talk about the need for sex or sexual relief in the same way that we talk about, for example, the need for oxygen. The need for sex or sexual relief is not universal (whether you regard the people who do not have this need to be "dysfunctional" is beside the point. Dysfunctional or not, they are people therefore they count), and the lack of this "need" being fulfilled will not directly result in death (again, it might result in death indirectly from suicide, but that is not caused by the lack of sex/sexual relief but the lack of *ability to cope* with lack of sex/sexual relief).
I'll boil down what I believe to this, to keep it simple: The drive for sexual relief is undoubtedly something that most people have. The need for sexual relief is something that some people may have, but this is entirely dependent on your definition of "need". The need for sex is something that very, very few people have, if any at all, and is also dependent on the definition of "need".
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Basics of biology, lesson one:
1.Animals have sexual needs (in some species manifested especially during certain seasons, in others over the period of their fertility). If you castrate an animal, its sexual needs will not be manifested so strongly or at all.
2.Homo sapiens is animal species.
3.Needs are not defined as something without which an individual will die immediately but as something which is necessary for the survival of the individual OR for the species (therefore sexual needs etc...) or which is necessary for healthy development of an individual of the particular species. As for the definition of health, probably the most widely accepted is the definition by World Health Organisation.
(Analogy with hunger / food - it is a need, some people have eating disorders or digestive illnesses and these individuals do not feel hunger which does not mean that hunger is not a need when we speak about homo sapiens as a species. The same goes about sex, just we do not speak about eating disorders here but about sexual dysfunctions).
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.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I do not think it changes anything so dramatically. It is not such a huge leap. The key point is: people have sexual needs that can be satisfied by different ways, these ways may include masturbation (for example if these sexual needs are not satisfied by sexual activity with a sexual partner or when masturbation is preferred by the person or when it is the only available way or it can be used as a substitute etc...there are many ways how we can include masturbation without changing the fact that people have sexual needs. I mean "people" as "homo sapiens" / biological species but of course not each and every individual human being has this feature developed to the same degree.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
It absolutely is a huge change. The change in a topic from "the need for one specific type of sexual relief (sex)" to "the need for any type of sexual relief including masturbation" is a huge one. It becomes obvious with the revealing of that fact that the vast majority of people do not need sex at all, but sexual relief in any of its forms. Of course one does not need sex, if one can find sexual relief through other paths.
Maybe I just misunderstood your initial question; I was under the impression that you intended "sexual needs" to mean "a need for sex" rather than "a need for sexual relief" (which I still dispute is a "need", but much less strongly so).