The Gaming Den

Psychic Robot wrote: if they aren't inclined toward the natural order.

Why is this invoked so much in arguments about sexuality, and so little in regards to all the other non-natural objects and activities that are part of modern life?

I mean there's no way that things like

• Internal Combustion
• Stainless Steel
• Refrigeration
• Indoor Plumbing
• Nylon, Rayon, Polyester, Vulcanized Rubber and a host of other materials you are likely wearing right now.
• Plastics
• Fiberglass
• Microwave ovens
• Vaccinations
• The internet

are anything but artificial, but I'd rather not live without them if I don't have to.

Conversely, such wonderful things as

• Forest fires
• Botulism
• Cancer
• Hurricanes
• Earthquakes

are all phenomena that clearly occur as part of the natural order, yet I would rather live without.

So saying that something is "unnatural" isn't by itself reason to reject it.

dsmatticus, please explain how homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. as far as I'm concerned any rejection of the natural reproductive cycle for an evolutionary dead end is clearly the result of a neural misfire, hormonal imbalance, or other genetic defect. no matter its root cause it can be safely classified as a mental illness.

oh and if you really want to get into it, we can talk about the sordid sexual habits of the gay community. if getting a bunch of HIV+ men piss on you and "breed your hole" so you become infected with HIV is considered not a mental disorder in your world then we have nothing further to discuss.

So saying that something is "unnatural" isn't by itself reason to reject it.

I am not arguing for policy but merely classification

Psychic Robot wrote: fyi I am gay I just don't talk about it incessantly unlike other people.

Just because no women are interested in you doesn't make you gay.I love being right though, have you gotten off on the attention you're getting in this thread yet? One tissue full or two?

PR wrote:I am not arguing for policy but merely classification

Then it's a meaningless classification, because cancer is natural (and bad), and the internet is unnatural (and good). So if you want to throw homosexuality in the same category as the internet, knock yourself out, because it doesn't help the argument "homosexuality = bad" at all.

PR wrote:any rejection of the natural reproductive cycle for an evolutionary dead end is clearly the result of a neural misfire, hormonal imbalance, or other genetic defect.

Here's a list of people with this mental disorder:
1) Homosexuals who don't use surrogates or other alternative techniques.
2) Heterosexual couples who choose not to have children (this includes me, close enough).
3) Couples who chose to adopt instead of have their own biological child.
4) Choosing, as a monogamous partner, anyone who is infertile/sterile.

Here's a list of people who don't have this mental disorder:
1) Heterosexual couples who do have children.
2) Homosexual couples who use some form of surrogate or whatever to have children who are biologically related to them.

So, yeah. According to you, infertile women and sterile men are untouchables and adoption is for crazies. And homosexuality is totally okay as long as you find a way to have a baby who is genetically related to you.

Then it's a meaningless classification, because cancer is natural (and bad), and the internet is unnatural (and good). So if you want to throw homosexuality in the same category as the internet, knock yourself out, because it doesn't help the argument "homosexuality = bad" at all.

not sure where you're coming up with me claiming that homosexuality was bad. in fact all I said that it is a mental disorder.

Here's a list of people with this mental disorder:
1) Homosexuals who don't use surrogates or other alternative techniques.
2) Heterosexual couples who choose not to have children (this includes me, close enough).
3) Couples who chose to adopt instead of have their own biological child.
4) Choosing, as a monogamous partner, anyone who is infertile/sterile.

Here's a list of people who don't have this mental disorder:
1) Heterosexual couples who do have children.
2) Homosexual couples who use some form of surrogate or whatever to have children who are biologically related to them.

So, yeah. According to you, infertile women and sterile men are untouchables and adoption is for crazies. And homosexuality is totally okay as long as you find a way to have a baby who is genetically related to you.

not what I said but keep reaching

PR wrote:not what I said but keep reaching

When you say "a mental disorder is any rejection of the natural reproductive cycle for an evolutionary dead end," you are using that statement to justify a position. But that statement justifies other positions exactly as well. If you want to use that statement, you have to accept all the positions it leads to or else you are failing the bare minimum test of "having a position that is logically consistent with itself."

If you'd like to refine your definition, knock yourself out. That's what we're waiting for you to do: to give a halfway intelligent definition that actually leads to the conclusion you want it to lead to.

Draco_Argentum wrote:
Just because no women are interested in you doesn't make you gay.

I had someone use the argument that women not being interested in you makes you gay before. It didn't work...

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Draco_Argentum wrote:
Just because no women are interested in you doesn't make you gay.

I had someone use the argument that women not being interested in you makes you gay before. It didn't work...

Now that argument is just silly. Women not being interested in you actually makes you a *nerd* - you know one of those weird anti-social kids who plays D&D......

When you say "a mental disorder is any rejection of the natural reproductive cycle for an evolutionary dead end," you are using that statement to justify a position. But that statement justifies other positions exactly as well. If you want to use that statement, you have to accept all the positions it leads to or else you are failing the bare minimum test of "having a position that is logically consistent with itself."

If you'd like to refine your definition, knock yourself out. That's what we're waiting for you to do: to give a halfway intelligent definition that actually leads to the conclusion you want it to lead to.

not really interested in playing spergy word games

trying to produce a precise definition will result in you shouting AHA! BUT WHAT ABOUT X?! which will of course result in a clarification of the definition and then you will undoubtedly try to undermine in some way for the next ten pages of thread.

Getting pretty bored with this conversation but thought I'd point that bisexuality is clearly not an evolutionary dead end. Even if as PR says it consists of "looking for dick on the side while maintaining an appearance of normalcy" that's still not a dead end.

Psychic Robot wrote:dsmatticus, please explain how homosexuality isn't a mental disorder. as far as I'm concerned any rejection of the natural reproductive cycle for an evolutionary dead end is clearly the result of a neural misfire, hormonal imbalance, or other genetic defect. no matter its root cause it can be safely classified as a mental illness.

Actually PR, I think you need to explain how it is a "mental disorder." I don't think you can argue mental disorders from an "evolutionary dead end" point of view. The humn brain wires itself for stimulation. This can come from a variety of sources and a number of these can easily go beyond the norms for the general population without being considered a mental disorder.

Psychic Robot wrote:oh and if you really want to get into it, we can talk about the sordid sexual habits of the gay community.

What about the sordid sexual habits of the straight community. The Marquis de sade was straight.

Oh and about HIV ... what about female prostitutes

Sex workers, along with other marginalised groups such as men who have sex with men and injecting drug users, are often labelled a 'high risk group' in the context of HIV and AIDS. But the debate about sex workers’ wider role in the global AIDS epidemic often polarises opinion. Some argue that sex workers are being wrongly portrayed as 'spreaders' of HIV, while others claim that HIV transmission through paid sex is ‘driving’ the epidemic.

In truth, the situation differs vastly between different countries and regions. While HIV prevalence is high amongst sex workers in some areas, in others it is relatively low, and they seem to play a fairly minor role in the spread of HIV. For instance, in most parts of Western Europe and North America, HIV transmission through paid sex is not considered to be a major issue. In other regions, however, notably parts of Asia, large numbers of sex workers are living with HIV, and this is influencing the overall pattern of the AIDS epidemic.

The factors that put sex workers at risk vary between countries. In some places, sex workers commonly use drugs and share needles. The overlap between sex work and injecting drug use is linked to growing HIV epidemics in a number of countries throughout Eastern Europe and Asia.

tzor wrote:What about the sordid sexual habits of the straight community. The Marquis de sade was straight.

Yeah, but he was about abusing women, right? It's not sordid to be having sex while you keep your women in their place, right?

I think you need to explain how it is a "mental disorder."

do I need to explain why pedophilia is a mental disorder? no. it is self-evident because it is a perversion of the natural order. there is a way things are supposed to work and pedophilia subverts that process. homosexuality does likewise.

in before whining about BUT CHILDREN CAN'T CONSENT. let's nip that before it starts. I am not comparing the two morally but psychologically.

What about the sordid sexual habits of the straight community. The Marquis de sade was straight.

Oh and about HIV ... what about female prostitutes

get back to me when female prostitutes deliberately try to infect themselves with HIV

The Marquis de Sade was a libertine and was very much bisexual, taking pleasure from either gender as he desired. He didn't really have much in the way of respect for anyone else's personal desires. Has no one here read his most famous work 120 Days of Sodom? All the protagonist/antagonist are at least bisexual, one of them is so vehemently against sexual conduct with a women that he will only fuck them in the ass.

And I've seen it argued in some circles that an individual being gay serves the purpose of providing additional individuals to help raise children in a hunter-gatherer society. Within a small tribe of people the individual not having children of their own can help raise those that do.

Also presented in this thread is how homosexual congress has been promoted within the species as a means of strengthening communal ties. Sparta was mentioned as one; but even more famous was the Sacred Band of Thebes, an army comprised of 150 couples. The theory being that since they were lovers they would fight more cohesively and ferociously. Even the samurai of Japan promoted male love.

There is more to prove it is a natural state of nature then not, and to call it a mental defect is insulting. Especially as you can't even set forth a reasonable standard of a definition without trying to worm your way around things.

PR wrote:trying to produce a precise definition will result in you shouting AHA! BUT WHAT ABOUT X?! which will of course result in a clarification of the definition and then you will undoubtedly try to undermine in some way for the next ten pages of thread.

Yeah, that's how intelligent discussion works. You say things. If they're stupid, people tell you they're stupid and why. Then you either point out why it's not actually stupid, go back to the drawing board for something less stupid, or admit it was stupid. At this point, you're doing none of those things, and that means your position is worthless and empty because even you can't be bothered to substantiate it with anything beyond "HERP DERP."

If that's how you're gonna do it, next time just say, "because I said so," and save yourself the trouble of the failed effort.

PR wrote:pedophilia

Pedophilia (of the sort you're talking about) is a psychological compulsion to engage in sexual behavior which is actively destructive to the other unwillful participant. Homosexuality is a psychological compulsion to engage in consentual sex with another willing human being who happens to be the same sex. Heterosexuality is a psychological compulsion to engage in consentual sex with another willing human being who happens to be the opposite sex.

You're comparing a psychological urge to rape to a psychological urge to have a consentual partner. It's pretty easy to see why you'd define one as a mental disorder and not the other.

PR wrote:natural order

Define natural order. It's not hard to find pedophilia in animals, so if you're seriously banking on the natural order as the end-all be-all you're actually a pretty sick fuck.

Josh_Kablack wrote:

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Draco_Argentum wrote:
Just because no women are interested in you doesn't make you gay.

I had someone use the argument that women not being interested in you makes you gay before. It didn't work...

Now that argument is just silly. Women not being interested in you actually makes you a *nerd* - you know one of those weird anti-social kids who plays D&D......

Actually, I think he was trying to get me to have sex with him. Like I said, it didn't work, he wasn't anywhere near pretty enough for me to sex.

Psychic Robot wrote:

I think you need to explain how it is a "mental disorder."

do I need to explain why pedophilia is a mental disorder?

Actually, yes, if you can. Pedophilia is a cumpulsive disorder, it forms an almost cumpulsive impulse in the victim. The victim, just like any addict will attempt to rationalize this impulse away; often completely throwing their moral compas out of whack in the process.

Oh, and to really make this even more complex; it is gender and orienation neutral. Male or female, married or unmarried, same gender or opposite gender (and this can be different from normal non juvenile sexual preferences).

None of that really applies in the case of the average homosexual. The average homosexual doesn't go around looking for "victims" to satify his or her urge and doesn't force himself/herself with a veneer of self rationalization.

Pedophilia (of the sort you're talking about) is a psychological compulsion to engage in sexual behavior which is actively destructive to the other unwillful participant. Homosexuality is a psychological compulsion to engage in consentual sex with another willing human being who happens to be the same sex. Heterosexuality is a psychological compulsion to engage in consentual sex with another willing human being who happens to be the opposite sex.

You're comparing a psychological urge to rape to a psychological urge to have a consentual partner. It's pretty easy to see why you'd define one as a mental disorder and not the other.

you're like clockwork. conflating moral judgments and psychological assessments. does someone who has a shit fetish have a mental disorder yes or no

Define natural order.

in this case the reproductive cycle of human development

Pedophilia is a cumpulsive disorder, it forms an almost cumpulsive impulse in the victim.

homosexuality is a compulsive disorder that forms an almost compulsive impulse in the victim to crave dick

PR wrote:you're like clockwork. conflating moral judgments and psychological assessments.

I don't think you're really capable of following this conversation. Nobody actually brought up morality here but you. You made the assertion pedophilia is a mental disorder, pedophilia is sufficiently similar to homosexuality, ergo homosexuality is a mental disorder. And it took five seconds to point out the behavioral differences between pedophilia and homosexuality. You claimed a similarity that was trivial to disprove, and nobody had to make any moral judgments to do it.

Now we can go on to make some clear moral judgments from those differences, but nobody's actually done that but you and the fact that those differences happen to have moral implications does not mean the differences stop existing. The fact that you saw it coming and cried "no appeal to morality!" is pretty hilarious, but nobody's falling for it and the only thing that shows is that you have no idea how to parse or understand an argument and everyone who talks to you is wasting their time oh my god what am I doing? I think we're through here.

your argument against diagnosing homosexuality as a mental illness is based upon whether or not it is destructive. personally I find the unbridled hedonism in the gay community to be destructive (and often self-destructive). either way your argument falls flat when you consider that not every mental disorder is overtly destructive.

does someone who has a shit fetish have a mental disorder yes or no

answer the question bitch.

PR, are you getting your info from the Onion?

as tongue-in-cheek as that article is, I agree with it completely. gay pride parades are a huge embarrassment imo.

Psychic Robot wrote: does someone who has a shit fetish have a mental disorder yes or no

According to the DSM-IV classification system, eating shit before fucking is not in and of itself a disorder absent other symptoms.

If you lead an other wise normal healthy life but like to taste shit before you fuck, then, no, you have no disorder.

Like how if you lead an otherwise normal healthy life but like to get obliterated every Saturday night, then, no, you are not an alcoholic.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf wrote:Like how if you lead an otherwise normal healthy life but like to get obliterated every Saturday night, then, no, you are not an alcoholic.

Game On,
fbmf

You sure? I thought consistant binges qualified.

[Edit]Tags[/Edit]

Not as far as I know, and, if so, I sure had an easy time recovering from my alcoholism from back when I was in college, and so did several of my co-workers.

Game On,
fbmf