Is not using the same as misusing?
Asexuals, those who are not interested in sex with anyone regardless of gender, according to Levin, could be accused of misusing their body parts. It is highly probable that asexuals will not be using their sex organs at all. If those parts were intended for a purpose, then not using them must surely be a misuse. I do wonder if Levin would contend that not using is better than, equal to, or worse than using a body part for something it's not 'intended to be used for.' I would imagine that he may not argue that it was worse, but that is equal in that would cause an equal amount of unhappiness for the asexual, because there is absolutely no way that a human being could not want to do the nasty business, if you will.
Surely, it's not unnatural and abnormal to not use something for what it was designed to do. A lamp, for instance, was designed to produce light; it provides an evolutionary advantage of scaring away potential predators and allows us to see in the darkness. Not using a lamp, however, is not unnatural or abnormal. I also hope that Levin has never used an item as a makeshift fix (like using a brick to hold a door open).
I agree that Levin might well think that not using something is essentially the same as misusing that thing. Considering that he used the term 'asexual' to refer to people who wished to have sexual relations with others but for whatever reason were not able to do so, it seems likely that he is not aware of that particular orientation, and would likely disbelieve in its existence if someone informed him of it.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I think this idea of not using being the same as misusing probably extends to nonreproductive body parts as well. However, once one does extend it, it becomes harder to support. Canine teeth are intended to tear meat - does this mean that all people who do not consume meat are misusing their canine teeth? There are muscles in the body which, in modern society, almost no one ever uses. Also, what of apparently useless organs, such as the appendix? Is it possible that the appendix did, historically, have a use, which is no longer utilized due to changing conditions? If so, this might mean that all of humanity is guilty of misusing (due to not using) their appendixes. Alternately, the appendix might truly be a useless organ, the only purpose of which is to sit there in a person's body and occasionally require surgical removal. In that case, could one not use this to argue that not every part of the body has a single, fixed use?
P.S. I also posted this on my blog if you'd rather read it there.
I think, reflecting upon this alongside our most recent Q&A prompt, that asexuality is much more comparable to apotemnophilia than homosexuality is. Apotemnophiles are not using the limbs they remove in any sense at all, similar to asexuals not using their reproductive organs.
ReplyDelete