[SwedenF]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Did she claim that? I understood the two as being separate premises. If they're not, then at first blush, your conclusion seems valid.

I am pretty sure I did not.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The problem is that the OP's original claims about demisexuality involved a claim that demisexuality implies an inability to masturbate.

I think you are once again putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

Allow me to refresh your memory on how this went down.

	Originally Posted by SwedenF To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are clearly never going to date a demisexual =P

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This logic is precisely why I find it scary to date such women. So you're a demisexual. This means you only enjoy sexual things with those you have an emotional connection with. So a lack of masturbation would mean a lack of emotional connection with yourself...that is seriously unattractive. [.....] I also find that women that masturbate seem to be much more intelligent on average. Obviously that is just anecdotal, but interesting to me as a note on my personal experiences haha

	Originally Posted by SwedenF To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That last part, I also see your logic. But just out of curiosity, have you ever considered there may be more reasons why someone may not masturbate?

When I said you aren't likely to date a demisexual, you responded by saying we don't like ourselves. Then you added how women who masturbate tend to be more intelligent. And in reply to that, I asked if you had considered that some may not be able to.

Please do tell me where in that I am saying that demisexuality implies inability to masturbate. Most of us will be perfectly capable, but may not do so, because of that. I happen to not be physically able to, but I never claimed that demisexuality is the reason.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That would constitute an extreme case. The likelihood of this scenario has got to be remarkably miniscule. You are indeed outdated, very outdated. They've had sex toys that can do the thrusting, gyrating, vibrating, spinning, and even licking for you for some time now.

I live in Sweden. We have 9M habitants. Out of those, they estimate 1M have a rheumatoid disease. A large portion of those are women. Yes, not all will have hand issues, but it could just as well be wrist, elbow or shoulder. And sure, depending on their likes it could work as well, but then again, it's not nearly as rare as you seem to think.

Another example would be carpal tunnel. Is that also laughably common?

And wow @ sex toys. That's freaky. Call me paranoid, but I would not let that anywhere near my private parts. Robots are taking over the world yo.

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I guess it *could* be the case that someone did not view it as awful to engage in, and also didn't engage in it, yet encouraged others to engage in it. It's not clear why one would do such a thing though. Masturbation is such an awesome activity that if one did not feel some disgust towards it, or have physical (or psychological) malfunctions disallowing it then I would be highly suspicious as to why the person didn't do it.

And I believe that's what it all boils down to. You just don't get why for some it may not be as entertaining and pleasant as for you. I don't think that makes us "unhuman" or condescending to those that do, it merely makes us different. But I'm glad to see you are at least admitting it could happen, although you don't understand why.

I would write a longer reply, but this is all I have time for right now.

[AlfredSchnittke]

"Originally Posted by SwedenF
You are clearly never going to date a demisexual =P"

This claim is equivalent to the claim that if one is demisexual one (necessarily) cannot masturbate. Otherwise it would be a false claim, and it wouldn't be clear why you said it at all.

If you meant something else, you should have been more careful with your words.

---------- Post added 05-09-2012 at 12:01 AM ----------

"I live in Sweden. We have 9M habitants. Out of those, they estimate 1M have a rheumatoid disease. A large portion of those are women. Yes, not all will have hand issues, but it could just as well be wrist, elbow or shoulder. And sure, depending on their likes it could work as well, but then again, it's not nearly as rare as you seem to think."

Come on, you must be joking with this.

So 1M have some kind of rheumatoid pain. How many of those have it in an arm area that would affect masturbation ability? Perhaps 75% let's say (to be liberal)? Then how many of those have the rheumatoid pain in BOTH limbs? Probably 10% of that 75%. How many of those that have the rheumatoid pain in both limbs also have a condition of little to no clitoral stimulation abilities? Probably 1%.

So you're talking about 1% of 10% of 75% of 1M. That's approximately 750 women in the whole country, or .008% of the population. Surely you are joking that you consider such conditions to be "common"? By such a metric every condition is common, so of course my view seems totally insane if you take such a metric.

I guess I have an overly narrow definition of "common" but for something to be "common" in my view it would have to be present in at least 30% of the populace, and that would be at a bare minimum. Realistically, I wouldn't really buy your commonality unless it were present in ~50% of the populous or more. .008% does not even come close to such a percentage.

Carpel tunnel is not laughably uncommon, but the estimates appear to be around 15% of the population, so still not meeting my metric of common. Also, it is not true that 100% of carpel tunnel suffers would be unable to masturbate, so that further decreases the number, making it even loss common under my metric.

You may have a very liberal view of "common" that allows for it to be common though.

---------- Post added 05-09-2012 at 12:15 AM ----------

"And I believe that's what it all boils down to. You just don't get why for some it may not be as entertaining and pleasant as for you. I don't think that makes us "unhuman" or condescending to those that do, it merely makes us different. But I'm glad to see you are at least admitting it could happen, although you don't understand why."

There are only a few logical possibilities involved.

There have to be reasons for things. You don't "just not masturbate", that makes no sense, there is some reason for it.

The perceived lack of emotional connection with oneself would appear to be one good explanation, certainly one that I have observed as actually being the case in my own experiences. That is, whether demisexual or not, the women I have encountered that did not masturbate were somehow closed off to themselves and their own bodies.

There could be other explanations, for example the various physical difficulties, maladies, etc...

But if both of these explanations are denied then perhaps there is a psychological block, e.g. repressed rape/molestation or extreme religious indoctrination that makes a woman feel too guilty subconsciously to masturbate.

None of the alternatives seem to fall into a particularly pleasant kind of explanation for the behavior.

Thus far, no counter evidence, that is, evidence of some healthy positive condition that explains it has been offered, only progressively gruesome accounts of diseases and bodily afflictions in place of psychological afflictions.


Finally, supposing by pure, freak occurrence, someone managed to just hold the contradictory beliefs "masturbation is awesome for others" and "masturbation is not awesome for me" it would follow that I would interpret this as a either a conscious, or subconscious declaration of one's superior status. It *might* be totally random, but I cannot interpret it as such, as it makes no sense. That isn't how human beings function in the real world, they don't fall into belief states completely randomly, rather there are various factors that lead to, and explain their behavior. There must be some narrative that explains the person holding those beliefs, and none of the possible narratives appear to be positive (though some are acceptable exceptions to my "wouldn't date", and others are not).

It's just the same as a rich person that might believe, "McDonald's is awesome for those people" meaning people that cannot afford organic meals every day for example, and also believing, "but I find it awful". Well, that's basically tantamount to declaring oneself superior in some way, it's not a neutral position, even if it feigned to be such, and it is such a position regardless of whether you also say, "but I don't mean to be judgmental of those people!" Well, it is inherent in your attitude that you are judgmental of those people, you can say whatever cheap words you like to "save face" or some such thing, but at the end of the day your actual attitude (your actions) speak much louder than your cheap words.

It's cool if you want to be like that, but I just wouldn't want to date such a person. I might still talk to such a person out of interest though, as I apparently am now.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Originally Posted by SwedenF You are clearly never going to date a demisexual =P" This claim is equivalent to the claim that if one is demisexual one (necessarily) cannot masturbate. Otherwise it would be a false claim, and it wouldn't be clear why you said it at all. If you meant something else, you should have been more careful with your words.

It can just as easily mean "if one is demisexual, one does not masturbate", which is not the same thing as "cannot". It could also easily be read as "any given randomly selected demisexual is unlikely to masturbate", because when making the decision to date the person, you probably won't be privy to the information of whether or not they masturbate. Consequently, you'll have to make the deduction based on info you do have and guesses about what's likely.

For future reference, it's generally considered good practice to ask/challenge someone about "derived claims" before attributing those claims to that person as if they've said them directly. The assumption that the person has thoroughly thought through every possible logical consequence of their words, especially in casual speech, isn't usually a safe one.

"And I believe that's what it all boils down to. You just don't get why for some it may not be as entertaining and pleasant as for you. I don't think that makes us "unhuman" or condescending to those that do, it merely makes us different. But I'm glad to see you are at least admitting it could happen, although you don't understand why."

	There are only a few logical possibilities involved. There have to be reasons for things. You don't "just not masturbate", that makes no sense, there is some reason for it.

Have you considered the possibility that you're misattributing burden of proof here, and that not masturbating is the default state? I don't think that's the case and I don't blame you for not thinking it is either, but you seem to be trying to be rigourous here, so I'm going to hold you to that standard.

	Thus far, no counter evidence, that is, evidence of some healthy positive condition that explains it has been offered, only progressively gruesome accounts of diseases and bodily afflictions in place of psychological afflictions.

Referring to physical difficulties with words such as "gruesome" is exactly why you're perceived as being judgemental and biased about this.

Finally, supposing by pure, freak occurrence, someone managed to just hold the contradictory beliefs "masturbation is awesome for others" and "masturbation is not awesome for me" it would follow that I would interpret this as a either a conscious, or subconscious declaration of one's superior status. It *might* be totally random, but I cannot interpret it as such, as it makes no sense. That isn't how human beings function in the real world, they don't fall into belief states completely randomly, rather there are various factors that lead to, and explain their behavior. There must be some narrative that explains the person holding those beliefs, and none of the possible narratives appear to be positive (though some are acceptable exceptions to my "wouldn't date", and others are not). It's just the same as a rich person that might believe, "McDonald's is awesome for those people" meaning people that cannot afford organic meals every day for example, and also believing, "but I find it awful". Well, that's basically tantamount to declaring oneself superior in some way, it's not a neutral position, even if it feigned to be such, and it is such a position regardless of whether you also say, "but I don't mean to be judgmental of those people!" Well, it is inherent in your attitude that you are judgmental of those people, you can say whatever cheap words you like to "save face" or some such thing, but at the end of the day your actual attitude (your actions) speak much louder than your cheap words. It's cool if you want to be like that, but I just wouldn't want to date such a person. I might still talk to such a person out of interest though, as I apparently am now.

I tried to give you an example of a situation where no such complex was present, and where I expected the neutrality to be obvious. You responded to this by deducing that someone who doesn't like onions must feel high and mighty over anyone else that does, because... well, pretty much just because. I can only assume you regard it as axiomatic and refuse to challenge it. The alternative, of course, is that you're being intellectually dishonest on purpose -- an alternative supported by the fact you've responded to every hypothetical presented so far by throwing in a bunch of bullshit assumptions for no apparent reason. Not only is this dishonest in general, it's completely incongruous with your presented persona of someone who carefully reads words and interprets them completely literally.

The fact that you're incapable, or pretending to be incapable, of even understanding the concept of one person liking something someone else doesn't, or vice versa, without that person having an obnoxious superiority complex is a problem with your perception, not in anything SwedenF has said or done. If you really are this incapable of understanding what difference of opinion entails, there's no point conversing with you, because such a viewpoint is so irreparably paranoid that there's simply no way we can meet on any sensible common ground. If you're just being dishonest, arguing with you is equally pointless for reasons I won't bother to elaborate on.

[AlfredSchnittke]

"It can just as easily mean "if one is demisexual, one does not masturbate", which is not the same thing as "cannot""

Why would one bother to make the connection between the condition of demisexuality and the fact that someone does not masturbate if there was actually no connection at all between the two phenomena?...

"It could also easily be read as "any given randomly selected demisexual is unlikely to masturbate","

No, it cannot mean this actually because the claim was a modal claim to the effect that for all x, if x is demisexual, then x does not masturbate.

This can be seen in the use of the language to convey that it would be impossible to date a demisexual that masturbates (i.e. I said I would not date any woman that didn't masturbate, the claim was that it followed from this fact that I would never be able to date a demisexual, meaning that the set of demisexual women and the set of women that masturbate share exactly 0 members).

---------- Post added 05-09-2012 at 02:20 AM ----------

"Have you considered the possibility that you're misattributing burden of proof here, and that not masturbating is the default state?"

I believe this is ruled out by empirical inquiry, so I don't currently worry about it.

If it is true that most people actually don't masturbate, then one wonders why pornography is such a large industry. Nonetheless I would be forced to amend my view to saying that I see it as more natural, and beautiful, even if apparently "deviant" for someone to masturbate, so it wouldn't really change my actual feelings about it, although it would make me slightly more sad about the state of this shitty world, and would increase how much I cherished those that I meet that do masturbate.


Anyway, I choose my own methods of interpreting the world. As you pointed out, I am not really privy to such private knowledge about people's actual masturbation habits, or their real attitudes towards it, I can only deduce them from their actions, and attribute various views to them as I see fit.

It is useful to me personally to attribute these attitudes to those that don't masturbate. Otherwise I might find myself allowing myself to be in a relationship with such a person, which would lead to inevitable heartbreak and pain as it did in the past before I adopted such a strategy. I have learned the hard way that words are extremely cheap, while what one can deduce from the actions of individuals is often invaluable.

Also, it is not a mere "difference of opinion" under discussion, it is the simultaneous holding of two opinions that are somewhat contradictory.

If you cannot see condescension in the McDonald's case I postulated, then you are really missing a tremendous amount of the real psychological motivations that people have by failing to pay attention to the linkage between their doxastic states, and their actual actions.

You are free to ignore these things obviously, and perhaps you are correct that I am a bit paranoid, but I have been burned so often that I have found it necessary to take note of such things. I have significantly improved my ability to navigate society by adopting such strategies.

I make no claims about the "truth of the matter", only about the strategies I employ that have provided me with active results in my own life.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why would one bother to make the connection between the condition of demisexuality and the fact that someone does not masturbate if there was actually no connection at all between the two phenomena?...

OK, you really are completely ineducable about this. I'll stop trying to explain it to you because, frankly, I'm tired of being held to a high standard of technical specificity by someone who refuses to apply the same standard towards their own writing and interpretation.

[stoopidkitty]

The younger the person is the more of a bonus it is. Giggidy. I wouldn't know though.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by Iota Null To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	OK, you really are completely ineducable about this. I'll stop trying to explain it to you because, frankly, I'm tired of being held to a high standard of technical specificity by someone who refuses to apply the same standard towards their own writing and interpretation.

What is the functional difference between the two claims "if one is demisexual, one does not masturbate" and "if one is demisexual, then one cannot masturbate"?...

I say there is none. They describe the same reality.

If both claims contain an assertion that because of the condition of demisexuality one does not masturbate; if one does not masturbate as part of certain psychological condition, then that person cannot masturbate due to that psychological condition. It's the same claim.

Perhaps the use of the word "cannot" is ambiguous here though. In one sense it means "physically incapable of" and in the other sense it means "incapable of deriving pleasure from". It is the second sense in which it applies to the case of demisexuals, and quite clearly this has been asserted as a property of the psychological condition of demisexuality.

Thus in this sense it is quite proper to take the claim as "if one is demisexual, then one cannot masturbate".

This of course leads us back to the original problem. Either this is a stipulated property of demisexuality, or it is not. If it is not then the explanation for any given demisexual not masturbating must be that they cannot form an emotional connection with themselves. Otherwise, there would be no other sense in which demisexuality would be linked to an inability to masturbate.

I would appreciate it if you'd just not respond at all if you are only going to respond with personal denigrations though, I think I've displayed a high degree of cooperation in spelling out my thought processes in an open and honest, and fairly rigorous way.

[Samoan Corleone]

Why's there no "I date virgins exclusively" option?

[IotaNull]

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

What is the functional difference between the two claims "if one is demisexual, one does not masturbate" and "if one is demisexual, then one cannot masturbate"?... I say there is none. They describe the same reality. If both claims contain an assertion that because of the condition of demisexuality one does not masturbate; if one does not masturbate as part of certain psychological condition, then that person cannot masturbate due to that psychological condition. It's the same claim. Perhaps the use of the word "cannot" is ambiguous here though. In one sense it means "physically incapable of" and in the other sense it means "incapable of deriving pleasure from". It is the second sense in which it applies to the case of demisexuals, and quite clearly this has been asserted as a property of the psychological condition of demisexuality.

I saw it as being the former sense -- "physically incapable of" or some variant. If you'd meant the latter sense, you would/should have written "if one is demisexual, then one doesn't like masturbating". This is why I say you're holding me to a higher standard of technical specificity than you're applying to yourself. When you thought I did that earlier, you criticised me for being ambiguous, yet you have no problem doing the same thing yourself.

	This of course leads us back to the original problem. Either this is a stipulated property of demisexuality, or it is not.

Or it's something that is stated to have a high degree of correlation with demisexuality but isn't a necessary component. I don't think that fits squarely into the first category (which implies an inviolable causal link) or the second (which implies no connection whatsoever, coincidental or otherwise).

	If it is not then the explanation for any given demisexual not masturbating must be that they cannot form an emotional connection with themselves.

What?

It's depressing that I even have to ask this, but: define "cannot". If you're using the conventional sense of the phrase, this is just a baseless assumption that flatly contradicts what has already been demonstrated. If not, I'll once again ask you to apply your standards of specificity to your own writing.

	Otherwise, there would be no other sense in which demisexuality would be linked to an inability to masturbate.

Dubious assumption number _,___. The link, even if causal, doesn't have to be one causing the other.

	I think I've displayed a high degree of cooperation in spelling out my thought processes in an open and honest, and fairly rigorous way.

The vast majority of your responses to my substantial points have involved you throwing in a bunch of assumptions (for example, you responded to my onion hypothetical by completely fabricating the "sitting in the corner staring condescendingly" detail) and then responding to some bastardised version of my points. You're also stubbornly treating "any disagreement over anything whatsoever means both people feel superior about it" as an inviolable axiom and are refusing to even consider the possibility that that might not be the case. So no, you haven't been open, honest, or rigourous, and no, I'm not going to stop calling you out on baseless assumptions.

[AlfredSchnittke]

"I saw it as being the former sense -- "physically incapable of" or some variant. If you'd meant the latter sense, you would/should have written "if one is demisexual, then one doesn't like masturbating". This is why I say you're holding me to a higher standard of technical specificity than you're applying to yourself. When you thought I did that earlier, you criticised me for being ambiguous, yet you have no problem doing the same thing yourself."

I only just realized that we might be using different senses of "cannot". One engages in conversation presumably as an exercise in eliminating ambiguities between speakers as one moves along, no? When I realized it was necessary, I provided the technical specification. Surely one cannot ask for more than that?

Supposing you are correct in saying that demisexuals simply do not like masturbation, it follows from this that it is somehow contradictory for them to say that they do like their partners to masturbate, as they will both "like" and "not like" masturbation. It also occurs to me that it would be very hard to explain this...why would it follow from being demisexual that one does not like to masturbate?

I think it is better to view even the psychological disability sense of "cannot" as just that, an actual inability to masturbate.


"Or it's something that is stated to have a high degree of correlation with demisexuality but isn't a necessary component. I don't think that fits squarely into the first category (which implies an inviolable causal link) or the second (which implies no connection whatsoever, coincidental or otherwise)."

This would be a valid response, but the original claim would only function properly if interpreted as making the claim that there is a necessary connection between the two, not a likely correlation. The use of the word "never" in the claim indicates that it is necessarily the case that all demisexuals do not masturbate.

"What?

It's depressing that I even have to ask this, but: define "cannot". If you're using the conventional sense of the phrase, this is just a baseless assumption that flatly contradicts what has already been demonstrated. If not, I'll once again ask you to apply your standards of specificity to your own writing."

Why do you engage in debate if you dislike it so much? Is it really necessary to constantly complain, and then passive aggressively denigrate your opponents (I assume to skirt the sensors of the forums)?

I defined cannot. Here I take the "psychological inability" sense. If the inability to masturbate is not part of demisexuality, then it must be some other psychological inability to form an emotional connection with themselves that leads to the inability to masturbate because what else + demisexuality would result in an inability to masturbate that relied solely on the notion of demisexuality (construed as requiring emotional engagement for sexual enjoyment). If a demisexual could emotionally engage with themselves, and an inability to masturbate was not a stipulated property of demisexuality otherwise, then it would seem that there is nothing to prevent demisexuals from masturbating anymore than any person picked at random from the general populace, which is equivalent to negating the purported claim that there is a link between being demisexual and not masturbating, or at least any kind of special link; or if there is a link, it has not been specified as of yet.

If a mere correlation is instead asserted, then one wonders from what the correlation arises, and the original claim that I could "never" date a demisexual because I would "never" date a woman that does not masturbate is falsified anyway.

"Dubious assumption number _,___. The link, even if causal, doesn't have to be one causing the other."

I'm assuming it only within the assumed context that there is some kind of casual link between demisexuality and not masturbating. That was what was originally proposed, or so it seemed (it is, in fact, the only way the original claim would make sense, since the correlational interpretation makes it false on the face of it).

"The vast majority of your responses to my substantial points have involved you throwing in a bunch of assumptions (for example, you responded to my onion hypothetical by completely fabricating the "sitting in the corner staring condescendingly" detail)"

You used the word "hate". Here is the dictionary definition of the word "hate":

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.

I think it is entirely reasonable to conclude that if you honestly hated onions you would sit in the corner glaring at your partner eating them. Why is that an invalid extrapolation?

Perhaps you didn't really mean to use the word "hate" but just "don't like the taste of"?

"You're also stubbornly treating "any disagreement over anything whatsoever means both people feel superior about it" as an inviolable axiom and are refusing to even consider the possibility that that might not be the case. So no, you haven't been open, honest, or rigourous, and no, I'm not going to stop calling you out on baseless assumptions."

Mustn't everything rely on "baseless assumptions" in some form?...

I am free to choose my axioms for modeling my social reality to conform to what I find to be the most useful purpose, you have absolutely zero ground on which to criticize my axioms, since they are a matter of arbitrary choice, chosen merely by individual utility relative to the modeler (me).

If you think that it is dishonest to make explicit my axioms and reasoning processes from them, then what counts as open and honest discussion to you exactly?...Blind acceptance of whatever you say, and kowtowing to [i]your[i/] vision of reality?...

Have I once stooped to denigrating your character the way you have numerous times to me?

Anyway, I will at least point out that, "any disagreement over anything whatsoever means both people feel superior about it" is an equally unfair formulation of my axiom. It isn't "anything whatsoever" but rather "anything regarding sexual matters whatsoever, within the context of those I wish to date".

Artificial analogies about what vegetables one likes or does not like do not really hold much water, unless you also believe that one's taste in veggies has the same impact on romantic intimacy as one's tastes in sexual activities.

I don't accept that because it isn't true for me i.e. it isn't the case that sharing taste in veggies has the same impact on romantic intimacy as shared taste in sexual activities in my relationships.

It very well may be the opposite in your case, and I certainly don't criticize you for it, I am only making a claim about my own self, and my own tastes.

[IotaNull]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am free to choose my axioms for modeling my social reality to conform to what I find to be the most useful purpose, you have absolutely zero ground on which to criticize my axioms, since they are a matter of arbitrary choice, chosen merely by individual utility relative to the modeler (me).

I think "STFU I CAN BELIEVE WHAT I WANT" is the final nail in the coffin of any claim you might have to be genuinely interested in discussing this honestly, and you've done so much misinterpretation that I'm forced to conclude that you're doing it on purpose. I was debating you in the vain hope that you might either change my mind or change your own, but that's obviously not going to happen.

I'm sure you'll write this off as me being poor at understanding you, so I'll leave you with a parting quote from xkcd: "People who think they're great at communicating but 'people are just bad at listening' are confused about how communication works."

[SwedenF]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This claim is equivalent to the claim that if one is demisexual one (necessarily) cannot masturbate. Otherwise it would be a false claim, and it wouldn't be clear why you said it at all. If you meant something else, you should have been more careful with your words.

With that, I am done. There is no point discussing when you assume everything you say is the absolute truth, and anything anyone else says is pointless and faulty. My statement was merely that it is unlikely that you would date a demisexual. It does not say anything as to WHY that is. Seeing how it's the very first thing I said, and the only thing I said, trying to blame me for not expressing myself clearly is absurd. Any interpretations of why it's unlikely you'd date a demisexual, is entirely based on your own ideas, and has absolutely nothing to do with my statement.

And for the record, sexuality is so much more than just physical sensations. Just because you enjoy the physical part a lot, does not mean everyone else is the same. That's your problem. Assuming everyone is identical to you, and refusing to believe that there could be different views that can not be explained by your own reasoning.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There must be some narrative that explains the person holding those beliefs

There is, you just refuse to accept it. If you want to understand someone, you have to look at it from their angle, not your own. All I see from what you write is "Give me a reason that makes sense in my world". I can't, because my feelings and choices are not made in your world, they are made in mine. If you simply discard them as not making sense or not being relevant, then you are basically telling me I am lying. Both to you, and myself. Do you really think you know people better than they know themselves? That is what I mean with that you can't try to explain it from your own side.

But, it's more than clear that we're never going to get to any sort of agreement. I set out to get insight to your thinking, and I have just that. Thank you for your time, and for explaining your side. It has been most enlightening.

[AlfredSchnittke]

"I think "STFU I CAN BELIEVE WHAT I WANT""

Jesus man, how is that an accurate representation of what I said in any way, shape, or form?...

You said that one of my axioms annoyed you, and I pointed out that, whatever else we might discuss, one cannot criticize choice of axioms, but only show that results derived from such axioms are incorrect.

Surely you don't disagree with that?...

---------- Post added 05-09-2012 at 05:47 AM ----------

"With that, I am done. There is no point discussing when you assume everything you say is the absolute truth,"

Where have I done this? I have repeatedly made only subjective claims valid for my own self.



"My statement was merely that it is unlikely that you would date a demisexual."

Why in the world would you use the word "never" then?? As some kind of taunting mechanism?

"It does not say anything as to WHY that is."

It says something. Your sentence did not occur in a vacuum, it was in response to my statement that "I would never date someone who does not masturbate". As a response formulated to that statement the statement "then you will never date a demisexual" is making the claim that the reason WHY I would never date a demisexual is because no demisexuals masturbate.

"Seeing how it's the very first thing I said, and the only thing I said, trying to blame me for not expressing myself clearly is absurd."

You have had ample opportunity to correct yourself since then and have not, leaving me to assume you meant what you said originally. You used a word that you are now saying you did not intend to use at all. The meaning of the word "never" and of the word "unlikely" are extremely divergent. I believe that I understood the original sentence perfectly, and have argued purely based on the meaning of that original sentence.

Now I am being told that this sentence was entirely wrong. Well, should I be blamed then?

I cannot help but take my interlocutors as speaking what they intend to say...can I?

"Any interpretations of why it's unlikely you'd date a demisexual, is entirely based on your own ideas, and has absolutely nothing to do with my statement."

Well the whole game is changed now. Of course, you leave me to come up with whatever narrative I must to fill in the gap you've purposefully left by providing exactly zero information regarding the apparent correlation between demisexuality and non-masturbation that you assert.

Left to my own devices, and asked to explain my own feelings on the matter, I cannot but invent my own hypothetical narrative to explain this proposal.


"And for the record, sexuality is so much more than just physical sensations."

I apologize, but I fail to know what you mean as I am a physicalist (I don't believe in non-psychical things). Do you mean to say, "sexuality is more than just touching of genitals"? Or something like that? In my view the only things we seem to experience are physical sensations, so I don't know what "more than physical sensations" would be exactly. I realize this is an unpopular view, if you just meant something "spiritual" or "mystical" in nature then that's cool, I'll just have to take it for what it is.

"Just because you enjoy the physical part a lot, does not mean everyone else is the same."

That's the only part there is on my view. Hmm, maybe you are distinguishing between "bodily sensations" and "psychological sensations"? Where do you get that the psychological sensations are unimportant to me?

"That's your problem."

And whose did you think it was before?

"Assuming everyone is identical to you,"

Who assumed that?

"and refusing to believe that there could be different views that can not be explained by your own reasoning."

Such as?


"There is [some narrative that explains the behavior] but you refuse to accept it."

What is the narrative? I have yet to see anyone offer any such narrative, except for null's suggestion that there is only a unexplained correlation between demisexuality and not enjoying masturbating. That doesn't strike me as much of an explanative narrative though.

"If you want to understand someone, you have to look at it from their angle, not your own."

Depends what level of understanding we are talking about. Is it possible to understand what someone understands themselves as, and also understand them from your own perspective or is that impossible in your view?

Funnily enough, you and iota null have repeatedly derided me for expressing my own views on the matter, refusing to accept that they are really valid, and basically thinking that the only goal of this conversation is to change my mind and get me to date someone that doesn't masturbate or at least view it as a "good/ok thing to do" or something equivalent to that.

In return, I haven't resorted to insulting either of you personally, and I have only made entirely subjective claims about my own reality without trying to change your attitudes or behaviors.

Finally, only I have elucidated my reasoning process fully, while you refuse to even volunteer the slightest bit of information that would help me to understand your perspective, instead deciding that insulting my character and then claiming that you never meant what you said in the first place are better ways to facilitate understanding. Why is that?

"That said, nobody said you have to understand demisexuality."

Apparently I do not, but it doesn't seem that anyone else here does either. Or else I imagine they would've explained it in some clear manner that resolved the conflict.

"Thank you for your time, and for explaining your side. It has been most enlightening."

I wish I could say the same, but you have offered nothing but insults to me in exchange for my honest presentation of my own views and reasoning processes. I hope that in reflection you might reconsider your approach in the future. Nevertheless, I always enjoy a good round of these things, unlike iota null, who is apparently exceedingly depressed by them =/

Oh well, cheers!

[nowt]

As long as they know when to stfu and ptfo.

[firebee]

Without necessarily saying anything about my own personal wanking habits, I've got that incredibly uncommon and rare condition of RSI in my dominant hand that causes problems with things like repetitive motions of the fingers and holding vibrating objects, particularly when odd angles are involved. The other hand... does not suffice.

If this condition got more serious, I'd probably be inclined to find solutions inclusive of fixing the offending hand, training the other hand to the necessary degree of dexterity, constructing a Rube Goldberg device, et cetera. But that would be long after I'd shitcanned any partners or prospective partners who went down the path of "Well? Well? Is it fixed yet? Don't you have other fingers... and toes? This wanking thing had better be your number one priority as far as functionality to preserve or restore, otherwise you are JUDGING my sexuality (wtf) and I HATE women like that (wtf^2)."

And I wouldn't think that need be said, but then again every day is a new surprise it seems.

[AlfredSchnittke]

	Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But that would be long after I'd shitcanned any partners or prospective partners who went down the path of "Well? Well? Is it fixed yet? Don't you have other fingers... and toes? This wanking thing had better be your number one priority as far as functionality to preserve or restore, otherwise you are JUDGING my sexuality (wtf) and I HATE women like that (wtf^2)."

I said nothing even close to that.

Good job at having exactly zero reading comprehension.

Unless this was some kind of odd joke...

[akairo no kuma]

Such poor communication in the thread, particularly in the debate over demisexuality. Each party is discussing something entirely different, while simultaneously believing that they are correctly understanding each other. Let's just note a few facts, using one particularly hilarious post as the starting point.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you're a demisexual. This means you only enjoy sexual things with those you have an emotional connection with. So a lack of masturbation would mean a lack of emotional connection with yourself...that is seriously unattractive.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Demisexuality is completely unrelated to whether or not one had a healthy relationship with oneself. Some people do not feel that sex with themselves is necessary, because their arousal comes from being intimate with someone who is special to them. There are many ways to have a healthy relationship, and sex is only one option on that front.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And it's no better for non-demisexuals. Usually a lack of masturbation means that the woman views sex as something "dirty" and as a "chore" or "duty" that is part of being in a relationship.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'd like to inquire as to the actual relevance of the bolded phrase. How large was your sample group? What percentage of them made any such claim? Please be specific.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A lack of necessity to masturbate does not mean that one immediately finds it dirty or evil, nor that they will condemn another who chooses to engage in this. Correlation does not indicate causation; just because some people choose not to masturbate because they find it disgusting, does not mean that all people who choose not to masturbate find it disgusting, nor that all people who choose to masturbate do not find it disgusting. I would say that it is less healthy for someone to masturbate despite not enjoying it, thus feeling like it is a requirement or a chore, than to simply abstain. The key here is that healthy sexuality looks different for different people, and what qualifies as healthy sexuality for one person is not universal.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This view than bleeds over into trying to make me feel guilty for my enjoyment of masturbation, or for thinking of sex as beautiful instead of evil. I can't stand that shit, I have enough fucked up religious indoctrination to overcome on my own without the woman I am dating telling me that sex is evil, or dirty, or unnatural.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You have just made the claim that, if someone does not masturbate, not only do they immediately believe that masturbation is evil, but they will guilt you for masturbating. Additionally, they will believe that sex -- not masturbation, but sex in and of itself -- is evil, and will condemn you for thinking that it is beautiful. One could take that a step further, and claim that any person who is not masturbating at the precise moment that you are will immediately believe that you are evil for choosing that moment when they did not. You are not even using logic anymore -- you are speaking from an emotionally-charged past experience, or perhaps a few. Which brings me to my next point...


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Using only your own negative experiences to condemn all similar events or possibilities is ridiculous, pure and simple. Your personal damage is not relevant to discussions about that which you do not understand or care to understand. Besides which, you come off as being entitled and demanding in relationships, and having poor judgement. Get over it.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I also find that women that masturbate seem to be much more intelligent on average. Obviously that is just anecdotal, but interesting to me as a note on my personal experiences haha

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The belief that masturbation makes one more intelligent is hilarious. First of all, it is made with the intent to imply that the other side of the debate is less intelligent if they hold with not masturbating, which is making things personal, and thus invalidating any potential point to be made. Second, using the fact that you have chosen poorly when seeking a mate as a defense for any position in a debate is irrational. Your poor personal taste is not anyone else's problem. Third, insulting someone else's intelligence when using poor grammar and poor logic just makes you look the fool. Nice going. Please don't bother trying again.

And one last one, for the entire discussion, rather than just this one ridiculous post:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

A fundamental flaw that INTJs tend to have, related to the tendency toward believing that they are always right, is believing that their way is the only way to do something correctly. This often manifests in the belief that most or all other types are inferior, or that most or all other belief systems or thought processes that are not almost or exactly identical to the INTJ's own are flawed or incorrect by default. This is due to the perception of personal threat: "If anyone else is right, and I disagree, that will mean that I am wrong. In order for me to be right, all dissenting parties must be wrong." However, life is subjective, and what works for one person may not work for another.
Bottom line: "I am right or you are right" is a logical fallacy. You may both be right, or in some cases, you may both be wrong. (I'm seeing a lot of the latter here.)

The last bit was added to clarify that Alfred isn't the only one with poor logic here.

---------- Post added 05-09-2012 at 02:40 PM ----------

... How many logical fallacies does this contain? (Hint: quite a few)

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why would one bother to make the connection between the condition of demisexuality and the fact that someone does not masturbate if there was actually no connection at all between the two phenomena?...

Great question. Why are you bothering to make that connection, when there is actually no connection at all between the two?

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No, it cannot mean this actually because the claim was a modal claim to the effect that for all x, if x is demisexual, then x does not masturbate. This can be seen in the use of the language to convey that it would be impossible to date a demisexual that masturbates (i.e. I said I would not date any woman that didn't masturbate, the claim was that it followed from this fact that I would never be able to date a demisexual, meaning that the set of demisexual women and the set of women that masturbate share exactly 0 members).

Au contraire. I am demisexual, and I masturbate. I know at least one other demisexual who masturbates, and know of many more besides. You do not understand that which you speak of, quite clearly. Please stop running your mouth, and go education yourself.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Have you considered the possibility that you're misattributing burden of proof here, and that not masturbating is the default state?" I believe this is ruled out by empirical inquiry, so I don't currently worry about it.

And thus, you are illogical in the face of logical debate.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Anyway, I choose my own methods of interpreting the world. As you pointed out, I am not really privy to such private knowledge about people's actual masturbation habits, or their real attitudes towards it, I can only deduce them from their actions, and attribute various views to them as I see fit.

Or, you could ask. Being presumptuous and judgemental because you are damaged is not the only answer. It is just the one that you personally find easiest, e.g. requires the least possible intellectual or logical effort on your part.

Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It is useful to me personally to attribute these attitudes to those that don't masturbate. Otherwise I might find myself allowing myself to be in a relationship with such a person, which would lead to inevitable heartbreak and pain as it did in the past before I adopted such a strategy. I have learned the hard way that words are extremely cheap, while what one can deduce from the actions of individuals is often invaluable.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are free to ignore these things obviously, and perhaps you are correct that I am a bit paranoid, but I have been burned so often that I have found it necessary to take note of such things. I have significantly improved my ability to navigate society by adopting such strategies.

Again, your personal damage is irrelevant, and projecting it onto others is ridiculous. You have effectively said that it is useful for you to overstate or even completely fabricate the attitudes of others, because you are afraid of being emotionally intimate to someone who does not hold your exact views on everything, and thus may actually ask you to think before judging. You have justified this with your own poor mate selection in the past. And to top it off, you have tried to pass all of this off as sound logic. It is not. It is pure emotional vitriol.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Also, it is not a mere "difference of opinion" under discussion, it is the simultaneous holding of two opinions that are somewhat contradictory.

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I make no claims about the "truth of the matter", only about the strategies I employ that have provided me with active results in my own life.

Ahahaha, your first emphasis applies to second emphasis. You make no claims about the truth of the matter, except that you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong, thus believing that what you say is the truth. You're contradicting yourself.

[AlfredSchnittke]

What an elaborate ad hominem attack you've formulated!


But thank you for proving my point:

"Au contraire. I am demisexual, and I masturbate. I know at least one other demisexual who masturbates, and know of many more besides."

It wasn't me who claimed demisexuals don't masturbate, rather my opponents.

Glad to have one finally confirm that I was correct.

Too bad you decided to misinterpret me, and attack me because you think I was attacking demisexuals when we're actually on the same side of the debate.

[SwedenF]

	Originally Posted by AlfredSchnittke To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why in the world would you use the word "never" then?? As some kind of taunting mechanism?

My mistake. I was in a rush to go to class (I ought to have learned not to do that). I said never. Still doesn't say anything about why, so although I got the word wrong, what I said still holds. But regardless, it is stupid of me to not be careful to get the quote exactly right, and I apologize for that.

I am not going to discuss it further, I merely want to say that yes, you were right on that part.

[Beezlebub]

Been there done that. Nothing special.

[Typhon]

	Originally Posted by Sethis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Male here. On it's own, being a virgin makes no difference to me. I don't care about sexual experience. However, if we were talking about a person of an older age I would become suspicious as to why she remained a virgin.

Basically this. As long as I have a strong emotional connection to the person it really doesn't matter but it would be kind of odd to date someone my own age (25) who just never decided to have sex. I have a friend who is a year younger than me and she is still a virgin, and I find that odd. But I'd get over it. On the plus side I'd get to take another person's virginity and hopefully I could it make it less weird this time for her.

[AlfredSchnittke]

Originally Posted by SwedenF To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

My mistake. I was in a rush to go to class (I ought to have learned not to do that). I said never. Still doesn't say anything about why, so although I got the word wrong, what I said still holds. But regardless, it is stupid of me to not be careful to get the quote exactly right, and I apologize for that. I am not going to discuss it further, I merely want to say that yes, you were right on that part.

Well, that was the whole debate.

So, thank you.

---------- Post added 05-09-2012 at 07:32 PM ----------

Originally Posted by akairo no kuma To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The likelihood of me "siding with" you is negligible, as you have just contradicted yourself yet again. I did not say that I agreed with anyone else's statements, simply that I do not agree with yours, and that not only are you poorly informed, but unwilling to seek out complete and correct information when you lack it. Ignorance is never an excuse. You have misinterpreted every quote that you have used, including mine, and skewed them to your advantage -- once again, straw-man tactics -- only to attack them in an overly personal and subjective way. Moreover, and this is subjective on my part, you are whining. It does lend credibility to the side of whomever you are so torn up about having hurt your poor ickle feelings. If you behaved in this manner toward them, and are skewing the facts of your "trauma" the way you skew forum quotes, you may well have deserved it. Also, attempting to insult me doesn't make you look intelligent, and attempting to shift blame only fools you yourself. You're hilarious and adolescent. Please stop trying; you may hurt yourself.

I am reporting your post for adding nothing but direct flaming.

I'd appreciate if you'd stop.

Anyway, did you, or did you not claim that you both 1. Are a demisexual, and 2. masturbate?

If yes, then you confirmed my position that demisexuals do not have an inability to masturbate.

However, the whole debate arose over an initial misuse of the word "never", it's been concluded now.

I don't know why you feel so hurt by me having some opinions.

[SwedenF]

You misunderstood me. I did not say I was wrong to write never. I said I wrong to quote myself incorrectly in my post yesterday. Like I said, I quoted myself incorrectly, and you were right that I originally said never and not unlikely, but I still hold by my premise that it my statement says nothing about why that would be. All I've agreed to is that I quoted incorrectly. I still stand by everything I've said, for example that I said nothing of why, and that you interpreting that way is on you.

Not even sure why I am pointing it out. I guess I just want it to be clear for anyone that reads that your newest misinterpretation is also wrong.

[Autoptic]

Strongly preferable. The mechanics aren't complicated, and I can't stand games. Roleplay IRL is ALWAYS clunky and cheesy, precluding any seriousness of intent and any potential for intimacy. Depersonalization is a dealbreaker. Sheeple who can't function outside scripts and are proud of that have my contempt. That's all I'm seeing from the proudly experienced. Amazing how many "skilled" women apparently think sneering demands are attractive, much less that they get a say in what I find attractive, amusing, or satisfying, at all.

[catzmeow]

I'm too old to find lack of experience appealing. It's like asking a consulting firm to hire first-time employees. Just...no.