Instigator / Pro
0
1389
rating
412
debates
44.42%
won
Topic
#5115
Reconsider asexuality as a disorder or dysfunction.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
0
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1492
rating
15
debates
50.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is what apparently some people have in this world.
According to aceweek.org, there was an article titled "Asexuality was Considered a Disorder?!".
The article went into about the advocacy of those that worked their activism to a make changes regarding the diagnosis of a lack of sexual desire.
The support is towards self identity of being asexual. The diagnostic categories have been converted to Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (FSIAD) and Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (MHSDD).
We can consider asexuality as a disorder which having a lack of sexual desire . It is truthful, it is correct and is telling the truth about one's lack of desire to use their sexual organs .
Just like transgenderism is in disorder with the person's mind and or body. There's a mismatch.
The article pointed out that the disorders now classified as Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (FSIAD) and Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (MHSDD) are now deemed as the successor(s) of homosexuality as was discussed in 1973.
Now politically so and socially so homosexuality has been ruled and accepted as just another elective identity. The diagnosis was correct based on the function and use of the sexual organs.
A person's lifestyle containing a lack of sexual desire is characterized by the desire of non usage of sexual reproductive organs. Said person can reject titles,labels, medical diagnostic technical terms and think of themselves just as another sexual orientation and is appropriate maybe because it's natural as heterosexuality.
But it's a social statement outcry rejecting medical assessment. This outcry makes a case about the general sexual experience as not necessarily being an exclusive human experience.
This is what the article points to. The act of sex is not an exclusive human experience. So going with trying to make that argument, you can successfully succinctly persuasively articulate the message that sex itself is actually an elective preference and is not a function derived from a hormonal survival instinct.
The problems arise when questions are asked about all the parts of our bodies and their functions.
Being honest there just solidifies these diagnostic rulings in the past and present day.
The bodily functions, the bodily structures and genes are what they are. But it is apparent that self identity is irrelevant to that. That's what makes transgenderism valid for each individual that has done the transition. That's what makes trans racialism valid for each individual that has done the transition.
It goes on and on and on.
When asked the question what are you?
You can tell the truth because it is what it is but add on your social preference of identity.
You can also exclude information about what you were born as and say you are a "her" regardless of a birth certificate and birth record.
I say you you have Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (FSIAD) or Male Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (MHSDD) if you're a male.
You say " no I'm just asexual. There's heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals. I'm just another type of sexual like all the other "orientations" to include pedophiles."
You can identify as all these different things. But the answer to why you identify different to same gender people that don't have different bodily parts and functions than you but there's a contrast in comparison of sexual hunger, realize the disconnect in declaring what you really are.
Who are you really? Are you not a living functioning being?
Do you not identify with that?
There's a disjointed reality of what you are involving what you do , desire to do and be , continue to be which is a living being.
Con
#2
I will have to posit an odd theory here.
Asexuality is itself a sexuality, yet it is possible to be disordered in a manner that shares characteristics with asexuality.
In the same manner, any sexual interest can be either natural or disordered.
Let me extrapolate.
A person that has a natural sexual inclination towards any sexual interest, regardless of it's social acceptance, regardless of the common conception of its rightness or wrongness, regardless of religious dogma or societal pressure, is not disordered, they are differently ordered.
The common use of "disordered" refers to someone that is outside of the norm or majority of beings within a species. I posit that this usage is incorrect.
Regardless of one's personal opinion, if a person has a natural, biological inclination to be sexually attracted to any demographic, they are differently ordered. They simply are made that way at no fault of their own or societal pressure. It is the way they ARE. Others may not agree with their inclinations, but disagreement does not equal correctness. If the majority of Earth believed Earth was flat, that wouldn't make it so. By the same line of logic, if the majority or Earth believes it is wrong or disorderly to be gay, asexual, (to get risky here) zoophilic, or pedophilic, it does not make it objectively wrong to be so. There is no objective right or wrong, only subjective. So any being that is subjectively having any interest is not objectively disordered, only relatively "disordered" nomically due to societal consensus. They are called disordered because they do not fit in with the norm.
A person that has a true sexual disorder is one who was not born or hardwired to have that inclination, rather they were societally pressured to be something they are not. Whether this is beneficial or not is subjective. If someone was born with the biological inclination to be attracted to males, but has had bad experiences with male humans, may become disordered and seek relationships with females, or may become asexual. This is disorderly because they are following an inclination of societal pressure, not their biological baseline. A disordered mind can be reordered to the biological baseline through therapy and gaining further understanding.
In the case of zoophilic and pedophilic attraction, it is quite similar. They may be born this way, or they may have been subjected to experiences that changed their inclinations away from their natural state. If they were born this way, they are not disordered, as no intervention can change what they truly are. If they were morphed this way by experience, they are disordered and intervention can help to return them to their baseline attractions. Many see pedophilic and zoophilic attractions as wrong, and subjectively they can be. Yet, objectively, if the attraction is naturally occuring without the pressures of others, then it is not disordered, even if it is seen as not optimal.(Sidebar: personally, I see them both as counterproductive tendencies that are not useful in furthering the population or increasing joy for all parties involved, as consent and mutual pleasure are necessary for a positive sexual experience, regardless, that is my subjective point of view, from how I am hardwired.)
Sometimes, the biological baseline is not the norm, and these people are seen as disordered, even though they aren't, and any attempts to reorder their mind will actually result in true disorder.
On the case of trans people, it is disorder, always. There is no way to be trans that is not fundamentally disorder. On that same note, the concept of gender itself is disorderly and arbitrary, and trans simply arises from this fundamental societal disorder. There is no such thing as gender, only biology and individual expression. Some attribute gender as a synonym for biological sex, and in that case, gender is pointless, binary, and arbitrary, and adds nothing, especially considering that there can be contradiction between chromosomal and phenotypic expression. Others attribute gender as a culmination of personality traits and expression, in which case it is pointless, broad, and arbitrary, no different than simply having preferences.
The disorder of gender is unnecessary and causes confusion for all.
Asexuality is sometimes ones biological inclination, and can not be changed, only masked, resulting in further disorder. Sometimes, people identify as asexual, though their "asexuality" is a result of trauma, and thus is disordered and can benefit from intervention.
Disorder is when the mind and body are not in congruence, not when others disagree with the mind and body of another.
Round 2
Pro
#3
"Asexuality is itself a sexuality"
Let me ask, how can asexuality be a sexuality?
Like atheism that is without theism, asexuality is without sexuality. It is non sexuality.
"In the same manner, any sexual interest can be either natural or disordered. "
This kind of rhetoric lends to the article in that once we blur and conflate things , all things, the foundation that makes certain things unique, stand alone gets dismantled.
For instance about sex being rejected as an exclusive human experience. It's more so a lifestyle and not a function derived from human development.
To say any or all sexual interests can be a disorder is distorted. But in order to argue one thing can be wrong just as another or have the same issue, then neither one is better or correct over the other.
Heterosexuality is not a disorder because it is not a mismatch to human anatomy.
For instance a physical disorder . Body parts poorly formed or missing at birth. The body, the muscles, skeletal parts are present to enable some type of mobility.
To be born with some parts missing, parts that are ancillary to others leaves a mismatched, out of order physical condition.
"A person that has a natural sexual inclination towards any sexual interest, regardless of it's social acceptance, regardless of the common conception of its rightness or wrongness, regardless of religious dogma or societal pressure, is not disordered, they are differently ordered. "
To bring this back to the epicenter of the topic, asexuality would be out of order with the human body as the body has sexual reproductive organs.
It's like having a nose but don't have a sense of smell. It's part of why you have a nose. That's what I'm talking about when it comes to disorder.
Just to make this nice and simple not complicating in all these other things one can suggest.
"The common use of "disordered" refers to someone that is outside of the norm or majority of beings within a species. I posit that this usage is incorrect. "
Not how I'm using the term disorder. Not disordered but disorder specifically. I don't believe I have any use or application for the term you mentioned.
"There is no objective right or wrong, only subjective."
Not really the topic of discussion but there are things that are fundamental which is what objective is and a person can classify each thing under one label versus another. The preference of the title right,good, bad , whatever, to each its own.
People that are objective versus subjective are thinking about personal dogma involved in ethics. Remove that and figure things universally, you'll still have a division of do's and don'ts which we could think of as right and wrong or constructive versus destructive.
"So any being that is subjectively having any interest is not objectively disordered, only relatively "disordered" nomically due to societal consensus. They are called disordered because they do not fit in with the norm."
The truth is , heterosexuality is an objective for human survival just as nutritional hunger. That's true no matter whom you talk to. Those are facts. Doesn't change from person to person. Knocks out the subjective element.
"A person that has a true sexual disorder is one who was not born or hardwired to have that inclination, rather they were societally pressured to be something they are not. "
That's what you mean by sexual disorder I suppose. A societal influence as I understand it is somebody colloquially speaking has been turned out.
" If someone was born with the biological inclination to be attracted to males, but has had bad experiences with male humans, may become disordered and seek relationships with females, or may become asexual."
They were born with the disorder. It didn't develop. People attested to this back 1973 and prior.
"This is disorderly because they are following an inclination of societal pressure, not their biological baseline. A disordered mind can be reordered to the biological baseline through therapy and gaining further understanding."
Apparently the way the opposing side views it, the disorder is not conforming to your disorder.
Which is more paradoxical than ever .
"In the case of zoophilic and pedophilic attraction, it is quite similar. They may be born this way, or they may have been subjected to experiences that changed their inclinations away from their natural state. If they were born this way, they are not disordered, as no intervention can change what they truly are."
Just because you're born with something, doesn't make it not a disorder. Mental and physical disorders occur with birth. People that are born blind is a physical disorder. If you going to argue it's not, they're supposed to be that way, why do they have eyes?
It's the same thing with being asexual. Having eyes with no ability to see. Having sexual reproductive organs with no ability from no desire to sexually reproduce.
Now the opposing can concede to that but because this is not a discussion but apparently a combat to them, you got to keep fighting a losing battle bleeding to death, resisting against the irrefutable.
"If they were morphed this way by experience, they are disordered and intervention can help to return them to their baseline attractions. "
Asexuality is a disorder at the end of the day. Baseline or not, natural or not, congenital or not.
"Many see pedophilic and zoophilic attractions as wrong, and subjectively they can be. Yet, objectively, if the attraction is naturally occuring without the pressures of others, then it is not disordered, even if it is seen as not optimal."
It is objectively wrong or it's true no matter who you talk to unless they're uneducated that being attracted to ejaculating sexual reproductive material into an animal (non person) due to an incorrect match or that that animal cannot breed human offspring.
This is what I mean by universal truths that we can figure and calculate. Just like in math we can figure that 2 plus 2 isn't 5. It's objectively wrong or it's true no matter who you talk to unless they're uneducated on how to correctly add doing arithmetic that one with another with another with another skips over four to five or that five cannot come out of adding two and two rightfully so.
Again to make clear to the audience, just because something is natural, doesn't make it by default not a disorder.
"(Sidebar: personally, I see them both as counterproductive tendencies that are not useful in furthering the population or increasing joy for all parties involved, as consent and mutual pleasure are necessary for a positive sexual experience, regardless, that is my subjective point of view, from how I am hardwired.) "
May not even be hardwired. You could be yourself pressured, persuaded, influenced socially that asexuality is not a disorder or that heterosexuality can be a sexual disorder.
"Sometimes, the biological baseline is not the norm, and these people are seen as disordered, even though they aren't, and any attempts to reorder their mind will actually result in true disorder. "
This debate is not about what normal is. So called interracial sexual relationships are still irregular even by today. But sexual attraction between male and female particularly of distant relation is not a disorder. People may have been brainwashed to say or think that it can be. Topics like these can help with the deprogramming of faulty information.
Doesn't matter if it's normal or not , natural or not. Is it a disorder according to the bodily functions. Not according to opinions and preferences of people or so called subjective morality.
"Disorder is when the mind and body are not in congruence, not when others disagree with the mind and body of another. "
Being that you understand this much, let's look at these examples.
When the mind and body are not congruent, it's out of order. The male body of a female or feminine type mind. That's not congruent.
A person having a body with a function to inseminate(impregnate) and that same body has a mind with no thoughts to touch the body that can successfully receive insemination but touch another that can't. That's incongruent and a mismatch.
Now this is no newsflash. The biggest response the liberal world will give to this today is a so what. People do what they do , mind your business and we going to call it what we want. We're not going to call it an incongruent condition otherwise referred to as a disorder. We just call it love and love and that's it and love is not wrong.
That is the response to cover or ignore the technicalities. Ok so be it .
A person having a body with a function to inseminate(impregnate) and that same body has a mind with no thoughts to touch anybody. Let alone somebody but ANYBODY(asexuality).
That's incongruent and a mismatch. We can look at this and see this honestly without even arguing about people agreeing or disagreeing.
That's what makes this objective because it's a matter of fact that there's a mismatch regardless of personal dissidence.
Round 3
Con
#6
My apologies for missing round 2, I posted it in the comments since I was late, but you did not see it. Here it is.
Having a physical disability is not the same as a mental disorder.
There is a distinct difference between a disordered and differently ordered person.
Heterosexuality is not an objective for human survival, it is a tool for reproduction of more humans. On a planet with more than enough humans, nature just may need humans to stop producing quite as much.
The human body has evolved the sexual organs with two main functions. Reproduction and pleasure, if a person is born not wanting either, they don't have to.
Your entire argument is "they're supposed to want to."
If it makes you feel correct to call them disorderly because they don't want to slam their meat vessel with another, then subjectively, you can do that.
And if it makes me feel correct to tell you everything in nature isn't so black and white, I can do that. You think in a linear fashion with extreme hard set rules to your logic. The psyche is not so simple.
There's quite a bit more that I could say, but it is basically rehashing all that has already been said, so I see no need.
Round 4
Pro
#7
*Having a physical disability is not the same as a mental disorder."
They're both disorders nonetheless.
"There is a distinct difference between a disordered and differently ordered person."
I don't know what you mean by "disordered ". Being that I haven't introduced that language into this topic, I can't speak on it like it's relevant.
"Heterosexuality is not an objective for human survival, it is a tool for reproduction of more humans."
So it's an objective of a tool, a human tool for reproduction of more humans. Which reproduction of more humans is surviving the human race.
No matter how you shake it up and pour it, it comes out the same .
"On a planet with more than enough humans, nature just may need humans to stop producing quite as much."
Then nature will start stripping us of sexual reproductive organs. It is nature that crafts us. Maintaining concepts that it's the other way around is no pun intended a disorder or out of order.
"The human body has evolved the sexual organs with two main functions. Reproduction and pleasure, if a person is born not wanting either, they don't have to. "
It's not about"have to". It's the body that just clearly identifies the disconnect. You're equipped with sexual organs but no sexual desire. You know that isn't in the right order. That's the bottomline.
"Your entire argument is "they're supposed to want to.""
I repeat "You're equipped with sexual organs but no sexual desire."
Don't put this on me . It's not according to what I solely say or think. It's according to the human body. I'm telling you about the human anatomy. It's not linking up with the desires. I mean, this is just "duh" for real.
"If it makes you feel correct to call them disorderly because they don't want to slam their meat vessel with another, then subjectively, you can do that."
I never said anything about"disorderly ". I said disorder. I want you to comprehend what I mean by the term and come back with prepared arguments.
"And if it makes me feel correct to tell you everything in nature isn't so black and white, I can do that. "
Apparently you're ignoring nature or don't understand it that well. With all due respect.
"You think in a linear fashion with extreme hard set rules to your logic. The psyche is not so simple."
This is comical. So here's what:
I repeat "You're equipped with sexual organs but no sexual desire."
"Don't put this on me . It's not according to what I solely say or think. It's according to the human body I'm telling you about the human anatomy. It's not linking up with the desires. I mean, this is just "duh" for real."
How about arguing how it's not a mismatch of having one thing that requires another and not having it or an incompatible element.
"There's quite a bit more that I could say, but it is basically rehashing all that has already been said, so I see no need."
No rebuttals basically from you.
You're basically just communicating people can do what they want to do. Duh, nobody is arguing against that. It doesn't change our bodily functions and necessary drives that SOME of us have.
Let's not be disingenuous here .
Con
#8
Disorder is in the title of the debate mate.
Just because you don't introduce a specific word does not bar another from using it, especially if the word is within the context of the conversation.
Disorder is being knocked out of ones natural tendency. Every person does not have the same natural tendency. Therefore, what is disorderly for one person may be orderly for another.
In ancient times, it may be considered "disorderly" culturally for humans to not desire procreation, because the population level was low, and not having children would decrease the likelihood of survival of the species, but even then that would not necessitate that the person themselves is disordered, only that their order does not match with the expectations of their culture.
Nowadays, it is simply untrue that every human needs to bear children for the survival of our species. In fact, our exponential growth rate will overrun the planets resources if there are not adaptations such as homosexuality and asexuality. I'd say homosexuality and asexuality are natural adaptations of the species, considering the rapid population growth. People who either can't or won't reproduce are still a net positive.
Humans are part of nature. Your assertion that nature would strip away reproductive organs is quite extreme, especially considering that the adaptive traits of homosexuality and asexuality solve the issue with much more efficiency and less energy expenditure. Physical traits are harder to evolve than mental ones. We share a close resemblance to other apes, slightly different bone structures, proportions, and hair placement, and the differences we do have evolved over millennia. The mental differences are much more extreme than the phenotypical expressions. Social structures and mentality are a part of nature as well, and they can evolve alongside the needs of the species.
Nature doesn't assert that people NEED to have sexual desires, humans do, specifically humans with sexual desires. Your entire argument is literally "duh they should have sexual desires, they have parts that can do that."
By that same line of logic, any artist can look at a non artist and say they have a disorder because "duh you should make art, you have parts that can do that."
Your understanding of nature disregards social evolution, mental adaptation, and differences between members of a species.
One of your last lines "necessary drives that SOME of us have." So clearly you acknowledge that some people have desires while others don't. Some spend their lives actively denying desire to reach inner peace. Some chase their desires for peace. We each have different goals. Clearly, the drive for sex isn't necessary, considering the species still exists, and that we still have plenty of population. Even if all of humanity lost the drive to procreate, we could logically deduce that it is necessary for the survival of the species.
We are human, and no two humans are the same. We all have similarities, but not sharing any specific similarity does not necessarily mean one has disorder.
Disorder would be an asexual forcing themselves to have sex, or a homosexual forcing themselves through heterosexual encounters. Or a heterosexual forcing themselves through homosexual encounters.
Round 5
Pro
#9
"Just because you don't introduce a specific word does not bar another from using it, especially if the word is within the context of the conversation."
I didn't say anything about"bar". I'm basically saying be it that I never used the term or introduced it , I don't have a definition for it. When you use terms that I don't use or not in a form that I use them, they're foreign and the meaning of them is lost to me. Therefore the understanding of what you're saying in certain language is unclear.
"Disorder is being knocked out of ones natural tendency. "
Ok see this is your definition of that word. You can't find no where in this debate of me defining the word disorder such as that.
Disorder is simply a mismatch. There are people born naturally blind. Would you say after getting vision correction, they have a sight disorder ?
You're going to cause greater confusion with language such as this .
"Every person does not have the same natural tendency. Therefore, what is disorderly for one person may be orderly for another."
I say it yet again. You're going to cause greater confusion with language such as this .
"In ancient times, it may be considered "disorderly" culturally for humans to not desire procreation, because the population level was low, and not having children would decrease the likelihood of survival of the species, but even then that would not necessitate that the person themselves is disordered, only that their order does not match with the expectations of their culture."
.
This is totally off topic. I specifically explained what I mean by the word "disorder". It has nothing to do with culture or social configuration. This is moving the goalpost and I certainly never used the term "disorderly".
In the context of this topic why can asexuality be considered a disorder?
Excerpt from the first round:
"We can consider asexuality as a disorder which having a lack of sexual desire . It is truthful, it is correct and is telling the truth about one's lack of desire to use their sexual organs ."
So there's a disorder between the sexual organs and sexual desire to use them.
Just like there's a disorder between the eardrums and ability to hear in hearing impaired folks.
The context is simply bodily features and bodily functions. Totally anatomical that this word disorder is describing and is based. It's describing the disconnect.
You have to move the goalpost in lieu of just conceding that.
Then an example was provided in the first round following that excerpt.
"Just like transgenderism is in disorder with the person's mind and or body. There's a mismatch."
The lack of desire to use the body's sexual organs as is for an alternate desire to possess or use alternate sexual reproductive organs.
In a mismatch you always have one thing without the other or missing the other necessary element.
Like a mismatch of a puzzle piece that will take an insertion of another piece only but has been paired with a piece that only takes insertion. Likewise with one piece that gives insertion paired with another that can only do the same .
These are mismatched functioning pieces.
"Nowadays, it is simply untrue that every human needs to bear children for the survival of our species. "
When you say "needs to", are you speaking from a circumstantial resourceful sense or functioning sense?
A circumstantial resourceful sense for example would be there's plenty of other people sexually reproducing so the resource available right now is sufficient to sustain.
A functioning sense is simply according to the anatomy, the body was equipped to sexually reproduce so the need of survival can be accomplished. Are you saying this is untrue?
I don't think so because that can't be refuted.
"In fact, our exponential growth rate will overrun the planets resources if there are not adaptations such as homosexuality and asexuality. I'd say homosexuality and asexuality are natural adaptations of the species, considering the rapid population growth. People who either can't or won't reproduce are still a net positive. "
I think you are saying because we can sustain somewhat in population, every person with the function doesn't need to utilize it . Just because we sustain somewhat doesn't mean the numbers in population doesn't shift up and down.
It's pretty much societal brainwashing that's got you persuaded with antihuman doctrine that "overpopulation " is an issue and that "TOO MUCH LIFE" is "BAD". This is why so many unhealthy things are endorsed. From abortion, unhealthy diets, lack of proper nutrition, push on pharmaceutical treatment of symptoms as opposed to curing illness/disease , lack of exercise, push of recreational drugs, push of recreational sex eliminating sexual reproduction in the process. Just all kinds of anti life agendas for self pleasure to include financial payoffs.
This generation is just swimming in the Kool aid. They've got you convinced that too much life on the planet is destructive setting you up with a big oxymoron encouraging the opposite that less is healthier by destroying your health. If we're not going to compromise a single life span, why compromise the span of human population to flourish as a whole? If we're going to encourage healthy lifestyles, living as long as you can, being pro life, why are we arguing against having too many people, too much life? Do we want to live and survive as long as we can individually in years? Then why not survive with increasing numbers of people on the planet?
See the spectrum of surviving can be poor or great sort of like a cancer survivor or organ transplant patient. It's not just point blank living or to survive period. There's a condition weighing to more pro life or anti life . Would you rather live longer with two organs instead of compromising years with one?
I have to resonate this :
If we're not going to compromise a single life span, why compromise the span of human population to flourish as a whole? If we're going to encourage healthy lifestyles, living as long as you can, being pro life, why are we arguing against having too many people, too much life?
It's again a mismatch with this nihilistic ideology of "we don't want to have too many babies born". I mean any of us right now could have been in that "too many babies" category and cut or eliminated from the population.
We got to think about this in principle. If you love your life, glad your here, get rid of this nihilistic antihuman rhetoric and mindset.
You say an adaptation of nature is homosexuality and asexuality. I guess you're trying to say it's a way of curbing the human population. The problem in your point which you should have covered this so I couldn't come back with a counter, why didn't nature adapt the bodily organs too?
Nature adapted the desire to none whatsoever to sexually reproduce but yet failed to adapt the sexual reproductive organs to just being urinary organs.
This my friend is still a mismatch and an explanation from you that fails to explain the inconsistency.
Thanks for trying though.
I may as well add this in here since I thought about it .
The planet's resources. Given that nature crafted the planet and everything. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the same nature that crafted humans to sexually reproduce has the same wherewithal to craft into a planet, the very same planet to bear resources to sustain humans on ?
Wouldn't those resources crafted by nature be made to be suffice be it that same nature crafted the number of humans that effectively can sexually reproduce be existent in the same place of those resources to accommodate all the human reproduction?
It be inconsistent again which truth is not. It is consistent. Nature adapted earth for the adaptation of humans to sustain and live on .
It's just like saying bodybuilders must curb their muscle growth because there's only so much oxygen in the environment that can be used to supply those muscles.
No , nature is fully equipped and has equipped us to whatever expansion naturally possible by the natural laws. It is the natural laws that determine this. Let us not get ahead trying to determine.
To get this back on topic because it's not about world population and nature adapting things or insufficient resources, through all that was said, I've demonstrated the mismatches still in all those different examples and aspects .
"People who either can't or won't reproduce are still a net positive. "
A net positive is when an addition is made . When you go in the negative you're taking away. Below zero is negative. Zero reproduction is net negative. But that nihilism has got you turned around going the opposite.
"Humans are part of nature. Your assertion that nature would strip away reproductive organs is quite extreme, especially considering that the adaptive traits of homosexuality and asexuality solve the issue with much more efficiency and less energy expenditure. "
Oh I don't have to assert it. I can just ask the question. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if nature will remove one thing, wouldn't it remove the other?
For instance, nature did not give a female....male sexual reproductive organs to inseminate a female so it did not give the female a desire to engage sexually with another female that has organs that function to receive insemination.
Now do you follow? See I don't have to assert anything. The BODY has already asserted for you if you want to use that word in this topic.
"Physical traits are harder to evolve than mental ones. "
Did nature tell you that?
Does it evolve mismatches?
"We share a close resemblance to other apes, slightly different bone structures, proportions, and hair placement, and the differences we do have evolved over millennia. The mental differences are much more extreme than the phenotypical expressions. Social structures and mentality are a part of nature as well, and they can evolve alongside the needs of the species. "
So mismatches do evolve you think. Nevertheless a mismatch like I say and asexuality is noooooo exception.
"Nature doesn't assert that people NEED to have sexual desires, humans do, specifically humans with sexual desires."
NO THIS IS YOUR ASSERTION. You have to prove that a person asserts themselves a sexual attraction and desire. People don't assert sexual desires, they just have them innate like having a hunger to eat. You don't assert an appetite .
If all this can just be asserted or personally dictated, there wouldn't be people struggling with certain lifestyles being criticized, antagonized, going through identity crisis.
Changing the dictation is one thing but the way you actually are is immutable less a greater power of ability intervenes .
"Your entire argument is literally "duh they should have sexual desires, they have parts that can do that."
You act like it's inconsistent to have sexual reproductive organs along with sexual desires.
It's like saying you being splashed with water, you should be wet. You touch a fire you should be burned. There's an inconsistency otherwise.
This is the disingenuous response I'm detecting from you.
I can go on and on with the examples. You have sight, you should have parts called eyes that has you to see . You have hearing, you should have parts called ears that has you to hear .
I mean what is not comprehensive or acceptable about this? Not even a debate.
Your only defense is "so what, people do what they do with their bodies".
You can't argue with the way our bodies are. These bodies aren't debating it. These bodies say or declare "it is what it is". They are what they are .
"By that same line of logic, any artist can look at a non artist and say they have a disorder because "duh you should make art, you have parts that can do that.""
First off it's not the same line of logic. This is a poor vague analogy.
You said "you have parts that can do that." Well what parts?
See you're not even breaking down what you're talking about. I at least specify sexual reproductive organs with SPECIFIC functionality. I don't say parts. If I just said that, what would I be talking about?
I could be talking about something that has nothing to do with sexuality.
What you did in that failed analogy basically in translation of my position is that I'm arguing because of present body parts, therefore sexuality and sexual desire should exist.
That's about as vague as the artist analogy you gave. A person that's an artist has body parts as another that's not an artist should be an artist.
That's very vague. Even the part about the artist. What type of artist?
Painting artist, musical artist, martial artist, you know.
Let's say my argument for example is a person has legs and according to the function they serve as mobility. That person is a runner in the Olympics and the next person of course has legs, they should be an athletic runner.
That's basically where you tried to go in that poor analogy you presented trying to make it the same logic.
My argument is a person has legs that serve as mobility and the next person with legs would have that unless they have a physical DISORDER and their legs aren't functioning. That's how we can consider what is a physical disorder or disorder.
See where you went, you tried to strawman and take it pass the physiological aspect into a personal endeavor aspect.
So NICE TRY AGAIN.
"Your understanding of nature disregards social evolution, mental adaptation, and differences between members of a species."
This is what you're not getting. I'm dealing strictly with functions of our bodies. All this about social structure, culture, personal vocations, you're adding on this in the mix. These is separate from our basic organic makeup.
"So clearly you acknowledge that some people have desires while others don't. "
I never said we all have sexual desires or else the word asexuality wouldn't exist in this topic.
"Some spend their lives actively denying desire to reach inner peace. Some chase their desires for peace. We each have different goals. Clearly, the drive for sex isn't necessary, considering the species still exists, and that we still have plenty of population. Even if all of humanity lost the drive to procreate, we could logically deduce that it is necessary for the survival of the species. "
None of this has to do with the topic. Again you delving into personal endeavors and I'm speaking from a physiological standpoint that you can't argue with so you strawman a view that you can.
"Disorder would be an asexual forcing themselves to have sex, or a homosexual forcing themselves through heterosexual encounters. Or a heterosexual forcing themselves through homosexual encounters."
You just proved my point. Someone that is asexual having sex has a disorder because they're asexual instead of just sexual.
Every one of your examples you presented a mismatch scenario. Homosexuality is a disorder. Heterosexuality attempting to accomplish what's a disorder which is homosexual.
Every scenario is a mismatch and asexuality the main topic, is a mismatch to the body and trying to engage in the act of sex without a desire to do it is not only a mismatch, it's an oxymoron.
Either way it's a mismatch. You've been looking at my points backwards this whole debate. But finally right here what you just said , you put asexuality and disorder in the same category.
Thank you, thank you.
Con
#10
There is a major difference between a lifelong, natural asexual, and someone that has been traumatized into sexual disorder that results in expressions similar to asexuality.
According to the current DSM, ‘self-identified asexuals’ and those who experience a ‘lifelong lack of sexual desire’ are normal – they should not be diagnosed with a mental disorder – relative to ego-dystonic asexuals, individuals who experience absent/low sexual desire but who do not identify as lifelong asexuals.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2023.2193575#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20current%20DSM,not%20identify%20as%20lifelong%20asexuals.
No content
Looks like there is nothing here yet
What are these silly little arguments as well? Do you adhere to the strict principles of validity?
If you do adhere to the strict principles of validity.. then you should go and look if "asexuality" is a mental disorder or not within sources or the sources given by search engines that are trusted by government officials. (Strict principles of validity is also a part of "logic")
Believe me.. professionals may have had debates that have squandered around the word "asexuality" as well.. and guess who won the debate..
And what is this description of the debate? I have found it to be commonly used as a description during my browsing of the debates..
"Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message."
It really looks like a "new opening" that the "council of debaters" have come up with... it seems efficient whenever used against people incapable of analysing a situation to an "OK" degree.
Hey man, DSM-5 does not contain the word "asexuality" as a mental disorder.. so quit yapping.
R2:
Having a physical disability is not the same as a mental disorder.
There is a distinct difference between a disordered and differently ordered person.
Heterosexuality is not an objective for human survival, it is a tool for reproduction of more humans. On a planet with more than enough humans, nature just may need humans to stop producing quite as much.
You lack understanding of what objectivity and subjectivity are.
The human body has evolved the sexual organs with two main functions. Reproduction and pleasure, if a person is born not wanting either, they don't have to.
Your entire argument is "they're supposed to want to."
If it makes you feel correct to call them disorderly because they don't want to slam their meat vessel with another, then subjectively, you can do that.
And if it makes me feel correct to tell you everything in nature isn't so black and white, I can do that. You think in a linear fashion with extreme hard set rules to your logic. The psyche is not so simple.