Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Changing Your Sexuality

135678

Posts

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    I'm not even sure that sexuality is a real thing beyond the construct we've made it out to be. I think people have sexual needs and find people to fulfill them who they care about.

    What do you mean by "sexuality isn't a real thing", "people have sexual needs and fulfill them"? That seems to indicate that sexuality is real insofar as it is a need we fulfill.

    jothki wrote: »
    That brings up the issue of what exactly the people with sexual desires that we (as a liberal-skewed community) consider unacceptable should be expected to do. Should pedophiles and zoophiles and the like be expected to actively attempt to change their desires? Should they accept what they are but commit themselves to never acting upon it? If we're talking about sexuality as being inherently ingrained, we can't just dismiss cases we dislike out of hand. We certainly can't call them metal illnesses that need to be cured, since that puts homosexuality in exactly the same position, with the only debate being whether it should be treated or not.

    I agree that homosexual / heterosexual / pedo-sexual / zoo-sexual / necro-sexual and all manner of other sexual orientations need to be lumped under the same category, unless we can articulate a sensible qualitative distinction between them.

    If we have to accept heterosexual and homosexual as natural predispositions that persons cannot change (or can change, we haven't received an update from the OP as to whether or not these things are changeable) then other sexual orientations would be similar.

    Unless we want to say that pedophiles have a disease, whereas homosexuals don't.

    Moreover, I'd be interested to know what people think of asexuality. If any sexuality ought to be considered a disease, that's the one. And I know it has a disease label (Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder) but some are moving to have it no longer be classified as a disease / disorder.
    Winky wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    You can choose who you fuck, but you can't change what you prefer to fuck.

    Does this hold with anything else?

    You can choose what you eat, but you can't change what you prefer to eat.
    You can choose what you drive, but you can't change what you prefer to drive.
    You can choose when you sleep, but you can't change when you prefer to sleep.
    You can choose how you walk, but you can't change how you prefer to walk.
    You can choose where you live, but you can't change where you prefer to live.

    Liberals have been conditioned to maintain the preference / act distinction with respect to sexuality. But when you try to play that out in other realms it starts to be quite goofy.

    Perhaps this indicates that the distinction is, itself, goofy.

    _J_ these are all extremely different behaviors that are controlled by completely different neural substrates, they are non-equivalent on even a purely biological level.

    I could say "You can choose when you breathe, but you can't change when you prefer to breathe."

    So, sex is a super-special thing?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    J, Can you elaborate on why asexuality ought to be considered a disease?

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Antimatter wrote: »
    okay. maybe not the correct word.

    but, it's a very hard concept to explain. my male body does not feel right. i have dysphoria, and i hate my body. i hate how bulky it is, i hate my genitals, i hate having masculine physical traits.

    I'm curious.

    Was there a specific point at which you started feeilng this way? I don't imagine that a 2 year old would hate its body.

    I tried to crush my testicles when I was 3 because they felt so wrong to me... so alien. I also would subconsciously try to scratch them off in my sleep. I mean, it tends to hit most trans people around puberty SUPER hard since thats when the sexes really start to diverge... but yeah, most people have a sense super young.

    Also, it doesnt have anything to do with sexuality really. Its about innate sense of gender. Sexuality is about the innate sense of who you are attracted to.

    This seems to indicate that gender isn't a social construct.

    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but trying to crush one's testicles at three years old doesn't seem like a rebellion against social norms, or even a manifestation of learned behavior. I doubt that any three year olds would "know" that there is an alternative to having testicles.
    Also: I think sexuality is much more mutable than people think. I do know a LOT of people (me included) who's sexuality has changed over time. Some of that is in regards to how I am viewing people and gender and whatnot. I really dont agree with the line "you are born this way, and your sexuality doesnt change ever" that is used in all the pro-gay arguments. However, I abhor the ex-gay movement because of how damaging it is. I guess I see sexuality is fluid and you just have to kind of go with it. If you find someone you are attracted to, cool! Doesnt really mater what sex or gender they are.

    Would you say that gender is as fluid as sexuality? Or is one's gender self-identification more permanent that one's fucking preferences?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    How about the opposite question?

    If it were possible to change one's sexual preferences would one be morally obligated to expand it for the purposes of inclusiveness and non-bigotry? Particularly I am thinking about expanding one's preferences to at least include transpeople of one's preferred gender(s). The way that the topic of trangender dating has been spoken about in the forum, in the past it's not a huge stretch to conclude that it would at least be endorsed to the level of "don't be a dick."

    Here's where my mind took your question: Oughtn't people be obligated to be sexually attracted to persons of different races?

    You pose an interesting question: If we're supposed to not be intolerant and so accept other people's preferences, then oughtn't we also be not-intolerant and so modify our own preferences to be more inclusive?

    Is it morally permissible to not be attracted to transgendered people?

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • DirtyDirtyVagrantDirtyDirtyVagrant Registered User regular
    It's morally permissible to have your own standards, yes. Does it make you kind of a douche? Also yes.

    For the record, I think that deciding to change your gender or sexual orientations is analogous to deciding that you want to breathe methane and live on a diet composed entirely of radioactive salts.

  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Registered User regular
    It's morally permissible to have your own standards, yes. Does it make you kind of a douche? Also yes.

    That's a contradiction.

    Provide sample data to the Traitor project here || What is Traitor?
    SODOMISE INTOLERANCE
    Tide goes in. Tide goes out.
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    J, Can you elaborate on why asexuality ought to be considered a disease?

    Sure.

    On the simplest level, a disease / disorder occurs when something is not behaving normally, not behaving as it is supposed to.

    Human beings are sexual entities.
    Asexual human beings are not sexual entities.
    Therefore, asexual human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

    Now, we could say that to qualify as a disorder, the condition has to cause distress or difficulties for the person affected by it. Since some asexuals are fine with their condition, it's not a disorder. However, there are many disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, that negatively affect the people around the individual who has it while the individual seems quite accepting of their condition.

    So, the "it doesn't bother me, therefore it's not a disease / disorder" argument doesn't really work since sociopathic serial killers have a disease regardless of how they feel about it.

    Again, a disease / disorder is said to occur when something isn't acting as it is supposed to act, as it would normally act without that disorder. I think it's safe to say that human beings are "normally" sexual entities that have sexual desires. If a human being exists that does not have a sexual desire, then it's not behaving as a human being is supposed to behave. This indicates a disorder / disease.

    This line of thinking could leak over into the "homosexuals aren't behaving normally and so they have a disorder" argument. At the moment, though, I'm focusing upon "having a sexual desire" and not addressing the issue of the object of that sexual desire. Homosexuals have a desire, and therefore are behaving normally. Asexuals completely lack the desire, and so are not behaving normally.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo FF69B4 Registered User, Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    Sex is also intended for reproduction.

    By your standard, homosexuality and any overwhelming interest in non-penetrative intercourse would be some kind of mental disorder.

    73zrBvC.png
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    It's morally permissible to have your own standards, yes. Does it make you kind of a douche? Also yes.

    As Apothe0sis posted, morally permissible behavior isn't the sort of thing that makes one a douche. Perhaps having sexual standards is not morally permissible, since it is douchy.

    I like this argument: Acting in accord with one's preferences is immoral. When one maintains preferences, one maintains exclusive conditions that limit other's possibilities.
    For the record, I think that deciding to change your gender or sexual orientations is analogous to deciding that you want to breathe methane and live on a diet composed entirely of radioactive salts.

    One for vote gender / sexual orientation cannot be changed.

    Are we ok talking about gender / sexual orientation as preferences? Or are they something more? Antimatter was using the "feeling" word before that was changed to...well, actually, Antimatter used "feeling" again to qualify the use of "feeling". That's interesting.

    So, what is gender / sexual orientation?

    - feeling
    - preference
    - natural disposition (disposition being somehow not a feeling or preference)
    - Platonic form instantiated in particulars

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Sex is also intended for reproduction.

    By your standard, homosexuality and any overwhelming interest in non-penetrative intercourse would be some kind of mental disorder.

    We can't get sex as "intended for reproduction" without having an entity in our ontology that intends. This entity is usually God. I was trying to avoid the "God made us to X" language, and rather talk about general behavior traits.

    Unless we have an influx of religious fundamentalists, I'd prefer to avoid the "God intends" language and just talk about general behavior traits.

    So,

    "People tend to want to fuck"

    rather than

    "People tend to want to actualize God's plan for human beings to populate the earth through missionary style sex."

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo FF69B4 Registered User, Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2012
    I feel that it can be changed, but "change" is not the right word for it.

    One's sexuality and identities can evolve over time. It's a combination of nature and nurture that doesn't make it easily predictable nor controllable.

    So yes, it can change, but it's hardly something the person in question would be in control of.

    Bobkins Flymo on
    73zrBvC.png
  • Linespider5Linespider5 I told her on Alderaan nothing else was going on.Registered User regular
    Sexuality evolves?

    bqv5944776sm.png
  • Billy ChenowithBilly Chenowith Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    J, Can you elaborate on why asexuality ought to be considered a disease?

    Sure.

    On the simplest level, a disease / disorder occurs when something is not behaving normally, not behaving as it is supposed to.

    Human beings are sexual entities.
    Asexual human beings are not sexual entities.
    Therefore, asexual human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

    But doesn't this just return us to the Platonic ideal human? Humans aren't "supposed" to behave in any particular way unless you believe in intelligent design.
    Heterosexual desire is an advantageous trait in that it encourages propagation of the species, but it's certainly not necessary.

    I don't think this is a satisfactory definition of a disorder:
    Human beings are superstitious entities.
    Rational human beings are not superstitious.
    Therefore, rational human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    J, Can you elaborate on why asexuality ought to be considered a disease?

    Sure.

    On the simplest level, a disease / disorder occurs when something is not behaving normally, not behaving as it is supposed to.

    Human beings are sexual entities.
    Asexual human beings are not sexual entities.
    Therefore, asexual human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

    But doesn't this just return us to the Platonic ideal human? Humans aren't "supposed" to behave in any particular way unless you believe in intelligent design.

    This was my distinction:

    "intended to" / "designed to" = God talk
    "supposed to" / "tend to" = Evolutionary, secular general habit.

    I think we can maintain a notion of normalcy without invoking God.
    Heterosexual desire is an advantageous trait in that it encourages propagation of the species, but it's certainly not necessary.

    Sure. Not everyone needs to have a baby result from their fucking.
    I don't think this is a satisfactory definition of a disorder:
    Human beings are superstitious entities.
    Rational human beings are not superstitious.
    Therefore, rational human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

    What would be a satisfactory definition of a disorder, then?

    Some people try to articulate disorders as things that cause problems / discomfort for the person who has them. But, you know, we tend to want to categorize pedophiles as having a disorder despite how much they really like the child-fucking. Unless you're fine saying that pedophilia isn't a disorder.

    I think "disorder" as "not normal" is sensible. And we can define normal by counting, unless we want to define normal by an appeal to Platonic essences or God's will or something like that.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo FF69B4 Registered User, Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2012
    Sexuality evolves?
    It is possible that a person may find themselves with different attractions later in life than earlier. And I don't mean that they are just finally acting on repressed sexualities.

    I am not saying this always happens, but it doesn't seem that crazy to suggest.

    Bobkins Flymo on
    73zrBvC.png
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    J, Can you elaborate on why asexuality ought to be considered a disease?

    Sure.

    On the simplest level, a disease / disorder occurs when something is not behaving normally, not behaving as it is supposed to.

    Human beings are sexual entities.
    Asexual human beings are not sexual entities.
    Therefore, asexual human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

    Now, we could say that to qualify as a disorder, the condition has to cause distress or difficulties for the person affected by it. Since some asexuals are fine with their condition, it's not a disorder. However, there are many disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, that negatively affect the people around the individual who has it while the individual seems quite accepting of their condition.

    So, the "it doesn't bother me, therefore it's not a disease / disorder" argument doesn't really work since sociopathic serial killers have a disease regardless of how they feel about it.

    Again, a disease / disorder is said to occur when something isn't acting as it is supposed to act, as it would normally act without that disorder. I think it's safe to say that human beings are "normally" sexual entities that have sexual desires. If a human being exists that does not have a sexual desire, then it's not behaving as a human being is supposed to behave. This indicates a disorder / disease.

    This line of thinking could leak over into the "homosexuals aren't behaving normally and so they have a disorder" argument. At the moment, though, I'm focusing upon "having a sexual desire" and not addressing the issue of the object of that sexual desire. Homosexuals have a desire, and therefore are behaving normally. Asexuals completely lack the desire, and so are not behaving normally.

    Uh, you have to show how, exactly, asexuality has inherent negative consequences for the asexual person or for the people around them. That's the difference between a disorder and a preference. Claiming that a behavior that differs from some arbitrary definition of how human beings are "supposed" to behave is a disorder simply because it's different means that a whole host of neutral or even pro-adaptive behaviors should be considered disorders.

    This is, as you have pointed out, the exact same line of thinking behind why homosexuality was considered a mental disorder for decades.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Sexuality evolves?
    It is possible that a person may find themselves with different attractions later in life than earlier. And I don't mean that they are just finally acting on repressed sexualities.

    I am not saying this always happens, but it doesn't seem that crazy to suggest.

    Sexuality is incredibly fluid, like all preferences ever. It really shouldn't be the place for hard lines in the sand when it comes to categorization.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    J, Can you elaborate on why asexuality ought to be considered a disease?

    Sure.

    On the simplest level, a disease / disorder occurs when something is not behaving normally, not behaving as it is supposed to.

    Human beings are sexual entities.
    Asexual human beings are not sexual entities.
    Therefore, asexual human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

    Now, we could say that to qualify as a disorder, the condition has to cause distress or difficulties for the person affected by it. Since some asexuals are fine with their condition, it's not a disorder. However, there are many disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, that negatively affect the people around the individual who has it while the individual seems quite accepting of their condition.

    So, the "it doesn't bother me, therefore it's not a disease / disorder" argument doesn't really work since sociopathic serial killers have a disease regardless of how they feel about it.

    Again, a disease / disorder is said to occur when something isn't acting as it is supposed to act, as it would normally act without that disorder. I think it's safe to say that human beings are "normally" sexual entities that have sexual desires. If a human being exists that does not have a sexual desire, then it's not behaving as a human being is supposed to behave. This indicates a disorder / disease.

    This line of thinking could leak over into the "homosexuals aren't behaving normally and so they have a disorder" argument. At the moment, though, I'm focusing upon "having a sexual desire" and not addressing the issue of the object of that sexual desire. Homosexuals have a desire, and therefore are behaving normally. Asexuals completely lack the desire, and so are not behaving normally.

    Uh, you have to show how, exactly, asexuality has inherent negative consequences for the asexual person or for the people around them. That's the difference between a disorder and a preference. Claiming that a behavior that differs from some arbitrary definition of how human beings are "supposed" to behave is a disorder simply because it's different means that a whole host of neutral or even pro-adaptive behaviors should be considered disorders.

    This is, as you have pointed out, the exact same line of thinking behind why homosexuality was considered a mental disorder for decades.

    Negative consequences of what degree?

    Anything could be construed as a neutral or pro-adaptive behavior if we restrict / extend the timeline and sphere of efficacy far enough.

    I'll admit that the disease / disorder label can be problematic. But I don't think, "you have to demonstrate that it pisses someone off" solves the problem. Things that could contribute to an evolutionary advantage might piss people off.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Human beings are sexual entities.
    Asexual human beings are not sexual entities.
    Therefore, asexual human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

    My question would then be; What are asexuals(or others) defying when acting or behaving in opposition to normative traits? I mean, aside from the state of normalcy.
    _J_ wrote: »
    Now, we could say that to qualify as a disorder, the condition has to cause distress or difficulties for the person affected by it. Since some asexuals are fine with their condition, it's not a disorder. However, there are many disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, that negatively affect the people around the individual who has it while the individual seems quite accepting of their condition.

    So, the "it doesn't bother me, therefore it's not a disease / disorder" argument doesn't really work since sociopathic serial killers have a disease regardless of how they feel about it.

    Aren't serial killers an extreme case in terms of sociopaths though, existing as outliers? There are sociopaths who are successful at integrating in society, even rising above other so called normative behaviours in terms of that success.

    Is asexuality even comparable in terms of affecting others? I mean more so than normal sexual behaviour, as there's certainly a plethora of negative consequences from that.

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • Billy ChenowithBilly Chenowith Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »

    This was my distinction:

    "intended to" / "designed to" = God talk
    "supposed to" / "tend to" = Evolutionary, secular general habit.

    I think we can maintain a notion of normalcy without invoking God.

    Right, but I don't think that deviation from normalcy should = disorder. Every trait, advantageous or disadvantageous, was at one point a deviation from normalcy.

    Sure. Not everyone needs to have a baby result from their fucking.

    Asexual people can still reproduce quite successfully. Sexual desire encourages us to have sex far more than is necessary for reproductive purposes, after all.

    What would be a satisfactory definition of a disorder, then?

    Some people try to articulate disorders as things that cause problems / discomfort for the person who has them. But, you know, we tend to want to categorize pedophiles as having a disorder despite how much they really like the child-fucking. Unless you're fine saying that pedophilia isn't a disorder.

    I don't know if it can be satisfactorily defined, unless you can first define what traits a perfectly operating human must have. But surely there has to be some element of harm included, either to the individual with the disorder or others.
    I think "disorder" as "not normal" is sensible. And we can define normal by counting, unless we want to define normal by an appeal to Platonic essences or God's will or something like that.

    By this definition, the fastest/strongest/smartest/bravest people all have disorders by virtue of being "not normal".

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Human beings are sexual entities.
    Asexual human beings are not sexual entities.
    Therefore, asexual human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

    My question would then be; What are asexuals(or others) defying when acting or behaving in opposition to normative traits? I mean, aside from the state of normalcy.
    _J_ wrote: »
    Now, we could say that to qualify as a disorder, the condition has to cause distress or difficulties for the person affected by it. Since some asexuals are fine with their condition, it's not a disorder. However, there are many disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, that negatively affect the people around the individual who has it while the individual seems quite accepting of their condition.

    So, the "it doesn't bother me, therefore it's not a disease / disorder" argument doesn't really work since sociopathic serial killers have a disease regardless of how they feel about it.

    Aren't serial killers an extreme case in terms of sociopaths though, existing as outliers? There are sociopaths who are successful at integrating in society, even rising above other so called normative behaviours in terms of that success.

    Is asexuality even comparable in terms of affecting others? I mean more so than normal sexual behaviour, as there's certainly a plethora of negative consequences from that.
    Lucid wrote: »
    My question would then be; What are asexuals(or others) defying when acting or behaving in opposition to normative traits? I mean, aside from the state of normalcy.

    Me: They're denying their sexuality.
    You: But they don't have sexuality; they're asexual!
    Me: All human beings have sexuality. When we cure the asexuals, they'll get their desire back.
    You: That's what Michelle Bachman's husband does to homosexuals!
    Me: I'm not talking about curing sexual orientation. That's nonsense. I'm talking about returning sexual desires to sexual beings who have lost their desires.
    You: But how do you know they've lost their desires?
    Me: Because human beings are sexual creatures.

    If you don't grant the premise that human beings are sexual entities, entities who have sexual desires, then we're probably not going to have a productive conversation.

    We could resolve it by saying "some" human beings have sexual desires while other don't. But, then we can undermine any claim of normalcy by invoking "some" and so we're left with no normalcy.
    Lucid wrote: »
    Aren't serial killers an extreme case in terms of sociopaths though, existing as outliers? There are sociopaths who are successful at integrating in society, even rising above other so called normative behaviours in terms of that success.

    Is asexuality even comparable in terms of affecting others? I mean more so than normal sexual behaviour, as there's certainly a plethora of negative consequences from that.

    I can think of many sexual behaviors that have negative consequences for others.

    Depending on what you take to be a negative consequence, we could say that asexuality has negative consequences. The chick in the bbc article is totes cute, and since she's asexual no one gets to fuck her. That's a negative consequence. Or maybe it pisses some people off.

    I dunno. I don't much care for the Liberal "it's fine if it doesn't piss anyone off / negatively impact anyone" argument.

    If we don't have a conception of normal, and we permit anything that doesn't harm another person, then it would be very difficult to label asexuality as a disorder.

    But we'd also be permitting many things that we don't much care for.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Asexuality is a sexuality, _J_ and your definition of disease/disorder isn't quite right and is very troubling when applied to asexuality.

    Basically, anything consenting adults do or don't do to each other should be fine.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    Asexuality is a sexuality, _J_ and your definition of disease/disorder isn't quite right and is very troubling when applied to asexuality.

    What is a good and sensible definition of disease / disorder?
    Basically, anything consenting adults do or don't do to each other should be fine.

    Volenti Non Fit Injuria maybe isn't the best moral theory.

    Seriously J not only are you a monumentally umpleasant person when you start uttering the nonsense that passes for philosophy in your mind (shame on whatever institution you graduated in, and shame on your tutors for creating such a monster), but your sense of humor, such as it is, is awful.
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    _J_ wrote:
    I can think of many sexual behaviors that have negative consequences for others.

    Depending on what you take to be a negative consequence, we could say that asexuality has negative consequences.

    Isn't this true for many behavioural traits though, including so called normative behaviour?
    _J_ wrote:
    If we don't have a conception of normal, and we permit anything that doesn't harm another person, then it would be very difficult to label asexuality as a disorder.

    But we'd also be permitting many things that we don't much care for.

    Is this not what occurs(to varying degrees) as societal values change over time? I mean, where/how is normalcy decided?

    Also, speaking again about asexuality, apparently not every individual who identifies as asexual is completely devoid of feelings of sexual arousal. So, I'm not sure if categorizing them as non sexual entities is entirely applicable here.

    Lucid on
    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    J, if 99.9% of the population were white, would you consider being black a disease?

    MWO User Name: Gorn Arming
    StarCraft II User Name: DeadMenRise
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    J, Can you elaborate on why asexuality ought to be considered a disease?

    Sure.

    On the simplest level, a disease / disorder occurs when something is not behaving normally, not behaving as it is supposed to.

    Human beings are sexual entities.
    Asexual human beings are not sexual entities.
    Therefore, asexual human beings are not behaving normally / as they are supposed to.

    Now, we could say that to qualify as a disorder, the condition has to cause distress or difficulties for the person affected by it. Since some asexuals are fine with their condition, it's not a disorder. However, there are many disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, that negatively affect the people around the individual who has it while the individual seems quite accepting of their condition.

    So, the "it doesn't bother me, therefore it's not a disease / disorder" argument doesn't really work since sociopathic serial killers have a disease regardless of how they feel about it.

    Again, a disease / disorder is said to occur when something isn't acting as it is supposed to act, as it would normally act without that disorder. I think it's safe to say that human beings are "normally" sexual entities that have sexual desires. If a human being exists that does not have a sexual desire, then it's not behaving as a human being is supposed to behave. This indicates a disorder / disease.

    This line of thinking could leak over into the "homosexuals aren't behaving normally and so they have a disorder" argument. At the moment, though, I'm focusing upon "having a sexual desire" and not addressing the issue of the object of that sexual desire. Homosexuals have a desire, and therefore are behaving normally. Asexuals completely lack the desire, and so are not behaving normally.

    Uh, you have to show how, exactly, asexuality has inherent negative consequences for the asexual person or for the people around them. That's the difference between a disorder and a preference. Claiming that a behavior that differs from some arbitrary definition of how human beings are "supposed" to behave is a disorder simply because it's different means that a whole host of neutral or even pro-adaptive behaviors should be considered disorders.

    This is, as you have pointed out, the exact same line of thinking behind why homosexuality was considered a mental disorder for decades.

    Negative consequences of what degree?

    Anything could be construed as a neutral or pro-adaptive behavior if we restrict / extend the timeline and sphere of efficacy far enough.

    I'll admit that the disease / disorder label can be problematic. But I don't think, "you have to demonstrate that it pisses someone off" solves the problem. Things that could contribute to an evolutionary advantage might piss people off.

    Negative consequences to a degree that impedes daily functioning, or causes actual harm to other people, would be a good start.

    Which is closer to how actual mental disorders are defined and diagnosed than "pissing someone off".
    _J_ wrote: »
    I dunno. I don't much care for the Liberal "it's fine if it doesn't piss anyone off / negatively impact anyone" argument.

    If we don't have a conception of normal, and we permit anything that doesn't harm another person, then it would be very difficult to label asexuality as a disorder.

    But we'd also be permitting many things that we don't much care for.

    It should be very difficult to label asexuality as a disorder, since absent of any additional information it isn't one.

    I'm also wondering what things the royal we doesn't much care for that should be impermissible even though they do not harm anyone, simply because they are arbitrarily defined as "abnormal".

  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo FF69B4 Registered User, Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2012
    Hey J, I can play that game too. I can even apply to a larger category than humans!

    Me: They're denying their heterosexuality.
    You: But they don't have heterosexuality; they're homosexual!
    Me: All heterosexual species have heterosexuality. When we cure the homosexuals, they'll get their desire back.
    You: That's like trying to change a zebra's stripes!
    Me: I'm not talking about that. That's nonsense. I'm talking about returning heterosexual desires to heterosexual beings who have lost their desires.
    You: But how do you know they've lost their desires?
    Me: Because human beings are heterosexual creatures.

    Sex is meant for reproduction. It is a way of continuing the species. Anything related to that is just a side-effect of encouraging animals to keep having babies. Do you see how easy it is to use your line of thinking and apply it to the agenda of homophobes? How do you deny that we're not a heterosexual species? The presence of non-heterosexuals? Going to be problems if you say that.

    Bobkins Flymo on
    73zrBvC.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    ICD-9

    302.71 Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder

    302.79 Sexual Aversion Disorder

    Both recognized by the DSM-IV


    To note, criteria B for both diagnoses: "The disturbance causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty"

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo FF69B4 Registered User, Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2012
    Are you implying that Sexual Aversion Disorder is asexuality?

    Note that it is late, so I may be totally misreading your post.

    EDIT: Never mind, see the edit now.

    Bobkins Flymo on
    73zrBvC.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Are you implying that Sexual Aversion Disorder is asexuality?

    Note that it is late, so I may be totally misreading your post.

    asexuality fits better with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder, which does include absence of desire for sexual activity.

    Going past that fits in the related other category of Sexual Aversion Disorder

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    1.) Didn't the DSM have homosexuality listed as a disorder at one point?
    2.) Don't those situations need to cause distress to the person to be diagnosed?
    3.) Why do we care if people are aesexual or not?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    _J_ wrote: »
    Asexuality is a sexuality, _J_ and your definition of disease/disorder isn't quite right and is very troubling when applied to asexuality.

    What is a good and sensible definition of disease / disorder?
    Basically, anything consenting adults do or don't do to each other should be fine.

    Volenti Non Fit Injuria maybe isn't the best moral theory.

    I'm not a doctor, but that isn't it.

    Anything that people get up to that isn't causing them undue harm (and I'm also a fan of letting people do whatever dumbass thing they want to themselves, generally so this is a hazy line for me) isn't any of my business. My personal moral code doesn't come into it.

    We're talking law, not morality. There's a difference.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    1.) Didn't the DSM have homosexuality listed as a disorder at one point?
    2.) Don't those situations need to cause distress to the person to be diagnosed?
    3.) Why do we care if people are aesexual or not?

    yeah, it was removed. Not like it's not contentious.

    Until a lot of people get to work and finally crank out the DSM-V, if a person is bothered by their own asexuality, the current protocol is to treat it like a disorder - a complaint that needs to be addressed as a detriment to the person's mental health.

    Of course, medicine is all about context now, but a doctor is entirely able to make the clinical decision not to tell the patient that asexuality is okay and should be accepted.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I mean, I don't have a problem with responsible adults who are bothered by parts of themselves trying to work those out, but I don't think it's anybody's place outside of that scenario to pass judgement on it.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo FF69B4 Registered User, Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    The problem is that a lot of people are bothered by this stuff because it's treated harshly by mainstream society.

    73zrBvC.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I mean, I don't have a problem with responsible adults who are bothered by parts of themselves trying to work those out, but I don't think it's anybody's place outside of that scenario to pass judgement on it.

    well as long as they aren't bringing physical harm to themselves or others, the doctor has no legal obligation to really do anything. Without that, it's not so much judgment as advice.

    So the question is if it's anybody's business to give advice.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I would hope the second part of my statement would address that though.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DirtyDirtyVagrantDirtyDirtyVagrant Registered User regular
    Apothe0sis wrote: »
    It's morally permissible to have your own standards, yes. Does it make you kind of a douche? Also yes.

    That's a contradiction.

    Only because I don't have the vocabulary to properly articulate what I'm trying to say.

    There's a shit load of grey area here and J phrased the question in a very black and white manner. I guess my answer should have been something like that.

    That said, I can't think of a single good reason why a guy couldn't be in a relationship with a trans girl. I assume that she's just like any other girl in this scenario? She's emotionally stable, healthy, attractive, and the only issue he has is that she was born with a penis (even if she is in current possession of a vagina)? What's his problem? He was hell-bent on impregnating her and personally witnessing as she carried their child to term? I can't think of many scenarios that don't boil down to transphobia, here.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I would hope the second part of my statement would address that though.

    yes, and like you previously mentioned, homosexuality could once be marked as a disorder if a person felt uncomfortable with it. I don't know about the deliberations that caused homosexuality to be removed and not hyposexuality, but if you are bothered by your own asexuality, the doctor could put that on your chart and try to find a way to cure or manage it. With homosexuality, a person can be told that it's not a disorder - even if they feel uncomfortable with it. Of course, if asexuality is bothersome, but not really indicative of any harm or cost, the doctor can decide that it doesn't qualify as a disorder. Or the doctor can decide that it does qualify as a disorder; it's the doctor's decision. Therefore, there is currently a difference, at least in psychiatry.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I would hope the second part of my statement would address that though.

    yes, and like you previously mentioned, homosexuality could once be marked as a disorder if a person felt uncomfortable with it. I don't know about the deliberations that caused homosexuality to be removed and not hyposexuality, but if you are bothered by your own asexuality, the doctor could put that on your chart and try to find a way to cure or manage it. With homosexuality, a person can be told that it's not a disorder - even if they feel uncomfortable with it. Of course, if asexuality is bothersome, but not really indicative of any harm or cost, the doctor can decide that it doesn't qualify as a disorder. Or the doctor can decide that it does qualify as a disorder; it's the doctor's decision. Therefore, there is currently a difference, at least in psychiatry.

    Technically, feeling distress due to one's perceived sexual orientation can still potentially be diagnosed as a disorder, it's just that the (proper) therapeutic approach would now be to deal with the personal (and other) issues that cause that distress rather than attempting to change someone's sexual orientation.

Sign In or Register to comment.