wenglund wrote:asbestosman wrote:wenglund wrote:asbestosman wrote:Well Wade, I might concede those points if you'd concede that an old heterosexual couple that is still attracted to each other has a sexual attraction disorder (the woman in menaupause) not unlike a key with a permanently broken lock.
If you are talking about impotence, then it is not uncommon for men and women to be sexually attracted, yet for psychological or physiological reasons, their sexual "plumbing" may not perform. That is not a sexual attraction disorder, but a "plumbing problem". So, the key analogy doesn't exactly apply.
Then why isn't necrophilia a plumbing problem?
Why are you supposing that the necrophiliacs have plumbing problems? Granted, the body they are sexually attracted to definately has plumbing problems, but not the necrophiliacs themselves.
I suppose that because you claim that an elderly couple that is sexually attracted to each other is suffering from plumbing problems, not SAD. But I think by your logic it would make more sense to claim that an elderly couple has an SAD not unlike a broken key trying to unlock a permanently broken lock. At the very least I think there are fairly reliable indicators that a woman has long passed the age of child rearing. That being the case, wouldn't it be an SAD for an elderly man to be attracted to such a woman?
If someone's spouse apears to be too young to reproduce but is actually fully developed and capable of producing children, is that a sexual attractoin disorder?
I am not sure what the sexual attraction is that you have in mind.
It would be somewhat like pedaphilia, but with the major difference being that the "child" is actually a legal adult with fully functioning reproductive organs. I'm not sure I know enough about physiology to even know if people like that exist, but I wouldn't be too surprised either.
What is the objective difference between a plumbing problem and a sexual attraction disorder?
Beside the cause/effect distinction, as previously explained, plumbing problems consist of more than just sexual attraction issues--including various physiological and psycological issues.
So on the basis of what can reasonably be inferred about reproductive ability from appearance, correct?
If you are not approaching the question on the basis of whether or not is it wrong, then why should a sexual attraction disorder be fixed any more than someone who has synesthesia?
I suppose it depends upon the degree to which SAD's and synesthesia may be limiting to the quality of life for individuals and societies, as well as their fixability.
Exactly! Now try to demonstrate that homosexuals have any difficulty with society that is not caused by the fact that many people discriminate against them. I am unable to do so which is why I do not consider sexual orientation to be any of my business except when it comes time for me to choose a mate (which I've already done).
Why does bearing children have to be the purpose of the key and lock?
As explained on my site, it is inherent in the design and function. And, absent artificial interventions, that is the only way in which children will be born.
Nature may have intended that I have long hair (and a beard and mustache). That I shave would hardly count as a disorder, despite the inherent design and function of hair.
Furthermore, there are animals that function just fine where not everyone reproduces. Ants and bees certainly are that way. And then there was something I heard about cows mounting each other when the bull is not available during the proper time. Perhaps nature has other things in mind than the original use. I also understand that male primates (other than humans) will engage in auto-eroticism. In fact, I understand that it is not uncommon to catch a young boy with his hand in his diaper experimenting. Is this an SAD? It appears that nature may have intended it to work this way.
Speaking of diapers, I do not think it wrong that we try controlling nature's schedule of where our children excrete waste. Why should nature's design govern us?
What purpose do male nipples serve? Why are our reprocuctive organs located near our waste disposal site? Is it not possible that the usage of things changes over time?
Why can't it be companionship and fun? Two keys and two locks seem perfectly capable of the latter.
While I see that as a positive byproduct, the design and function don't seem to suggest that as a primary purpose. And, companionship and fun may be achieved in other ways.
But the primary purpose is still served. Most people are attracted in such a way that reproduction is likely. The ear may primarily be a organ of hearing, but it is also an organ for balance. Balance may be acheived in other ways, but the ear's contribution is still useful. Were humans to lose the ability to hear, the ear's contribution toward balance is still useful.
Now if you're talking about whether or not homosexuality is a sin, I'd agree. So is drinking tea. (Well, they're sins for those who make promises not to anyhow).
I can respect that. It is just that the issue of "sin" introduces some subjective complexities that I prefer to avoid in my purely rational discussion. Others, of course, are certainly welcome to pursue that angle.
Is this starting to make any sense to you? I wonder because you seem entirely unresponsive to my responses, and rather than taking pause to carefully consider and acknowledge what I have said, you appear to jump right on to the next question.
I think it's starting to make sense to me. I keep jumping because I am arguing against the utility of such a certer for SAD as you have, at least in the case of homosexuality. Now if the homosexual believes that such behavior is a sin, then I do think some help is necessary. I just don't think that calling homosexuality a disorder is useful from a purely rational point of view. Human sexuality is very complex and provides many more benefits than mere reproduction.
Your site seems to indicate that you do not mean a disorder to necessarily mean something analogous to mental disorders. That is at least refreshing. But that being the case, it appears to me that sucha discussion about homosexuality is pointless.
Just so you know, I find pedaphilia morally repugnant on the basis that a powerful agent is exploiting a weaker agent. The weaker agent is not of sufficient knowledge to sufficiently understand consequences and give consent. I find a similar thing to hold true in the case of bestiality. I have never heard of anyone doing it with plants, but I do not find it morally repugnant--just disguisting (and pathetic) as I would one who likes blow-up dolls.
Whatever the case may be, I do very much value the rational, mature, non-dismissive way in which you have approached the discussion with me.
I try. I'm getting the feeling that others are focusing on the strangeness of making an alalogy. I have to admit, I find it strange when sex ends up being compared to keys and locks or little factories. I'd prefer that such discussions avoid euphemisms or analogies where possible. Otherwise whenever I end up playing board games / video games with my brothers we start cracking jokes about keeping our hands off each others keys/factories/whatever. Yes, I'm kinda immature that way. It doesn't mean I can't be serious when I want to be.