He argued that "demand constitutes the Other as already possessing the 'privilege' of satisfying needs", and that indeed the child's biological needs are themselves altered by "the condition that is imposed on him by the existence of the discourse, to make his need pass through the defiles of the signifier".[7] Thus even in speaking one's demands, the latter are altered; and even when they are met, the child finds that it no longer wants what it thought it wanted.[8]