Posted by linkadge on July 10, 2008, at 17:27:02
In reply to Re: sexist pharmacist, posted by blueboy on July 10, 2008, at 14:17:56
>What I am saying is that people who don't have >sex don't necessarily suffer any lessening of >life function (unless they want children), and >can even have improved life function. It depends >on their personality.
Exactly. I am not arguing with this. It depends on many individual factors. That is why I am confused when somebody suggests that somebody else is out of line for wanting to regain their sexual function.
>You can't assume that sexual dysfunction is a >disqualification or even a problem for everyone. >And some people might find that it is less of a >problem than they would have anticipated.
Sure, that may be. But, this thread was started by somebody who made the decision to try viagra for sexual dysfunction. This person was replied to with essentially "you should't have even tried using viagra, you should just accept sexual dysfunction". This is a blanket statement that is not at all sensitive to the individual factors affecting this poster.
>I didn't say that, sigh. I try not to engage in >normative language like "should" when talking >about sex.
I don't think we are arguing at all.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:838130
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20080706/msgs/839166.html