Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, you are the one doing the personal attack/judging - calling people "hyper-emotional head cases" if they don't agree with you, while others point out logical, scientific evidence. I have acknowledged those who have physical or psychological reasons for not seeking sex, even saying that I can respect their choices.
I believe there is a small percentage of asexual people as well as those with physical/psychological issues that prohibit sex, however the OP does not appear to meet this criteria. There are also people who override (or at least try to) natural, basic sexual needs like priests vowing celibacy. The high failure rate on this provides further evidence on how hard it is to override a basic need - even with high religious stakes.
I disagree with your definition that it is not a basic need, because it doesn't kill you when you don't have it. I agree with the Maslow's definition that puts sex on the same basic level as food, water, sleep... There are many reasons why this Maslow definition is universally accepted by many professionals, and previous posters have explained some of the rationale on this thread.
Where did I call them that? I said "probably". Hit too close to home? Many professionals criticize and deny Maslow's hierarchy. Google it and they have even more compelling reasons than those who support it. Everyone who doesn't have or want sex has a problem. I don't care if you respect their choice but to assume they are a problem is quite frankly judgmental. It's on an individual level. One person may need it and one person may not need it but does it. Another doesn't need it and perhaps is repulsed by it. There are also people who try to make themselves sexual when they really aren't and ups their drive for whatever reason (I fall into this category). There are cases of all sorts in the human race. They are all naturally needed to achieve some sort of balance.
Let me know when someone dies due to lack of sex though I can easily point out who died due to lack of food, water or sleep. Maslow's hierarchy is really on an individual level. It can be the same for some and different for others. The only part in which probably is truly universal is food, water and sleep. Let me ask you this because you are so convinced in your beliefs that you apparently know everybody more than they know themselves. Do I have a basic need to have sex? Am I suppressing some natural urge to go stick my penis in something? I've been myself for quite a long time and I've never had that. However, because you know everybody better than themselves. Perhaps you can give me some insight into myself. It is a basic need you know which applies to everyone.
Last edited by Yellow Jacket; 04-03-2013 at 02:48 PM..
Where did I call them that? I said "probably". Hit too close to home? Many professionals criticize and deny Maslow's hierarchy. Google it and they have even more compelling reasons than those who support it. Everyone who doesn't have or want sex has a problem. I don't care if you respect their choice but to assume they are a problem is quite frankly judgmental. It's on an individual level. One person may need it and one person may not need it but does it. Another doesn't need it and perhaps is repulsed by it. There are also people who try to make themselves sexual when they really aren't and ups their drive for whatever reason (I fall into this category). There are cases of all sorts in the human race. They are all naturally needed to achieve some sort of balance.
Let me know when someone dies due to lack of sex though I can easily point out who died to lack of food, water or sleep. Maslow's hierarchy is really on an individual level. It can be the same for some and different for others. The only part in which probably is truly universal is food, water and sleep. Let me ask you this because you are so convinced in your beliefs that you apparently know everybody more than they know themselves. Do I have a basic need to have sex? Am I suppressing some natural urge to go stick my penis in something? I've been myself for quite a long time and I've never had that. However, because you know everybody better than themselves. Perhaps you can give me some insight into myself.
In the modern world we live in, nobody has the luxury of being an 'individual,' it's not appreciated by these people. You should know by now when majority rules on an issue, anyone diverting from that 'has the problem,' that's the way it works. You brought up the point of 'everybody knowing themselves' better then the next person, another concept that's usually thrown out the window. Majority knows what's best for you. If you want to know what you need, ask them.
Where did I call them that? I said "probably". Hit too close to home? Many professionals criticize and deny Maslow's hierarchy. Google it and they have even more compelling reasons than those who support it. Everyone who doesn't have or want sex has a problem. I don't care if you respect their choice but to assume they are a problem is quite frankly judgmental. It's on an individual level. One person may need it and one person may not need it but does it. Another doesn't need it and perhaps is repulsed by it. There are also people who try to make themselves sexual when they really aren't and ups their drive for whatever reason (I fall into this category). There are cases of all sorts in the human race. They are all naturally needed to achieve some sort of balance.
Let me know when someone dies due to lack of sex though I can easily point out who died to lack of food, water or sleep. Maslow's hierarchy is really on an individual level. It can be the same for some and different for others. The only part in which probably is truly universal is food, water and sleep. Let me ask you this because you are so convinced in your beliefs that you apparently know everybody more than they know themselves. Do I have a basic need to have sex? Am I suppressing some natural urge to go stick my penis in something? I've been myself for quite a long time and I've never had that. However, because you know everybody better than themselves. Perhaps you can give me some insight into myself. It is a basic need you know which applies to everyone.
I don't care if you agree with Maslow. I stated that it is my opinion (without attacking yours) that I agree with it. Unlike you, I was able to state my opinion without personally attacking you. And I am speaking of sex on the macro level - that the human race dies without it, even if one person does not die without it. Sex is a necessary, instinctive, basic need for the human race to perpetuate. It is good for the majority, despite the outliers that exist. I could care less about your individual needs, I am talking about the greater societal need. Those who are good at obtaining/retaining sexual partners are biologically rewarded, just like throughout the animal kingdom.
You are dismissive of the fact that I have repeatedly acknowledged there are a small percentage of asexuals in the world, as well as those who are physically/psychologically unhealthy to have sex. And I have also said I respect individual choice. However, if someone is in a loving relationship without (as you say) "a natural urge to stick the penis in," when their partner desires that intimacy, then I would say that is unnatural and unhealthy for a relationship and grounds for separation, unless it is a relationship between 2 asexuals of course. Marriage laws agree with this.
I don't care if you agree with Maslow. I stated that it is my opinion (without attacking yours) that I agree with it. Unlike you, I was able to state my opinion without personally attacking you. And I am speaking of sex on the macro level - that the human race dies without it, even if one person does not die without it. Sex is a necessary, instinctive, basic need for the human race to perpetuate. It is good for the majority, despite the outliers that exist. I could care less about your individual needs, I am talking about the greater societal need. Those who are good at obtaining/retaining sexual partners are biologically rewarded, just like throughout the animal kingdom.
You are dismissive of the fact that I have repeatedly acknowledged there are a small percentage of asexuals in the world, as well as those who are physically/psychologically unhealthy to have sex. And I have also said I respect individual choice. However, if someone is in a loving relationship without (as you say) "a natural urge to stick the penis in," when their partner desires that intimacy, then I would say that is unnatural and unhealthy for a relationship and grounds for separation, unless it is a relationship between 2 asexuals of course. Marriage laws agree with this.
You were speaking on the individual level and saying sex is a universal need. The human race does not dies without sex. Artificial insemination is not sex last time I checked. Try again. Speak on a macro level and not on a individual level. I was dismissive of your supposed respect for asexuals' choice because you also said that they have a basic need for sex. Stop talking on two sides of your mouth. Stick to the majority if you only care about the majority.
Just because some people don't feel the need to have sex doesn't make them defective. If I'm a slave to something then I won't try to shift blame from myself by saying I have a basic need for it like everyone else. Your words and statements were on an individual level as well and that's incorrect by a distance as long as the Golden Gate Bridge. Also marriage laws also created by insufferable know-it-alls who think that one size fits all. No wonder, marriage as an institution is losing appeal. If a couple whose sex drives don't match then if they come to any compromise (from no sex at all to sex everyday) which parties agree with than the relationship is healthy and natural. It's none of your business and if they can come to compromise then that is healthy because compromise is a big part of relationships. Their relationship may very well be more mature than a relationship between two rabbits who have no self-control.
I don't care if you agree with Maslow. I stated that it is my opinion (without attacking yours) that I agree with it. Unlike you, I was able to state my opinion without personally attacking you. And I am speaking of sex on the macro level - that the human race dies without it, even if one person does not die without it. Sex is a necessary, instinctive, basic need for the human race to perpetuate. It is good for the majority, despite the outliers that exist. I could care less about your individual needs, I am talking about the greater societal need. Those who are good at obtaining/retaining sexual partners are biologically rewarded, just like throughout the animal kingdom.
You are dismissive of the fact that I have repeatedly acknowledged there are a small percentage of asexuals in the world, as well as those who are physically/psychologically unhealthy to have sex. And I have also said I respect individual choice. However, if someone is in a loving relationship without (as you say) "a natural urge to stick the penis in," when their partner desires that intimacy, then I would say that is unnatural and unhealthy for a relationship and grounds for separation, unless it is a relationship between 2 asexuals of course. Marriage laws agree with this.
Actually, I think both you and Yellow Jacket are correct.
Sure you can live without sex, as long as you're happy and have hobbies. But from what I've seen on here and real life, some people that are in forced celibacy are usually lonely, angry, depressed, or crazy.
I think Maslow meant that sex was a necessity only from a psychological standpoint.
You were speaking on the individual level and saying sex is a universal need. The human race does not dies without sex. Artificial insemination is not sex last time I checked. Try again. Speak on a macro level and not on a individual level. I was dismissive of your supposed respect for asexuals' choice because you also said that they have a basic need for sex. Stop talking on two sides of your mouth. Stick to the majority if you only care about the majority.
Just because some people don't feel the need to have sex doesn't make them defective. If I'm a slave to something then I won't try to shift blame from myself by saying I have a basic need for it like everyone else. Your words and statements were on an individual level as well and that's incorrect by a distance as long as the Golden Gate Bridge. Also marriage laws also created by insufferable know-it-alls who think that one size fits all. No wonder, marriage as an institution is losing appeal. If a couple whose sex drives don't match then if they come to any compromise (from no sex at all to sex everyday) which parties agree with than the relationship is healthy and natural. It's none of your business and if they can come to compromise then that is healthy because compromise is a big part of relationships. Their relationship may very well be more mature than a relationship between two rabbits who have no self-control.
Right, artificial insemination with its risks (including multiple, low birthweight babies) is the most natural, desirable way to perpetuate the human race. Just because there are other ways to procreate, does not mean they are preferred.
And I did not say people who don't need sex are "defective" or that "assexuals have a need for sex." I said the majority has a natural, instinctual basic need for sexual intimacy, despite society's ability to procreate from test tubes.... I said that individuals who are good at obtaining/retaining sexual partners are often biologically rewarded. And many posters and researchers, as well as Maslow, agree with this. But I can respect those who disagree with me in a respectful way, unlike you.
You, OTOH, are making up lots of stuff about what I said, and anyone who has been following our conversation should be able to see this. So you are either 1) misinterpreting my posts or 2) lying to try to make me (and my opinion) look bad. I vote for the latter.
BTW, there are many couples who have a mature, happy, healthy relationship with frequent physically and spiritually fulfilling sex. You referring to them as two rabbits who have no self-control and immaturity is what reeks of the judgmental, holier-than-thou attitude.
Right, artificial insemination with its risks (including multiple, low birthweight babies) is the most natural, desirable way to perpetuate the human race. Just because there are other ways to procreate, does not mean they are preferred.
And I did not say people who don't need sex are "defective" or that "assexuals have a need for sex." I said there is a natural, instinctual basic need for sexual intimacy, despite society's ability to procreate from test tubes.... I said that those who are good at obtaining/retaining sexual partners are often biologically rewarded. And many posters and researchers, as well as Maslow, agree with this. But I can respect those who disagree with me in a respectful way, unlike you.
You, OTOH, are making up lots of stuff about what I said, and anyone who has been following our conversation should be able to see this. So you are either 1) misinterpreting my posts or 2) lying to try to make me (and my opinion) look bad. I vote for the latter.
BTW, there are many couples who have a mature, happy, healthy relationship with frequent physically and spiritually fulfilling sex. You referring to them as two rabbits who have no self-control is what reeks of the judgmental, holier-than-thou attitude.
It's an option an over time artificial insemination will become much more refined. It's not hard to misinterpret your words when you clearly use the word universal (you obviously need to look up what that means). You made your own self look bad and that set the tone for your entire argument. I can disagree with others respectfully but I can't tolerate hogwash. Going down and telling every single person what their needs are is hogwash. I wasn't referring to just any "mature, happy, healthy relationship with frequent physically and spiritually fulfilling sex" as rabbits but sex doesn't mean that a relationship is healthy and mature. You put way too much in putting an object into an orifice. Many unhealthy relationships has frequent sex. What is your point? There is no such thing as a biological reward. Is there is a biological punishment as well?
Last edited by Yellow Jacket; 04-03-2013 at 04:40 PM..
IMHO sex is a basic need People define “sex” in different ways. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as “sexually motivated behavior.” People all have their own definitions of what “sex” and “having sex” means. For some people it’s only penis-in-vagina intercourse. For some people, it’s only penis-in-anus intercourse (anal sex). For some people, it’s genital rubbing without intercourse. For some people, it includes oral / genital contact. For some, it includes masturbation. The possibilities are many. For most experts it includes all of the above. So if one engages in the above acts they are engaging in a sexual act. I have yet to met anyone who abstains from sexual motivated behaviors, even asexual people...http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publi...auseGraham.pdf okay quick reps welcome
It's an option an over time artificial insemination will become much more refined. It's not hard to misinterpret your words when you clearly use the word universal (you obviously need to look up what that means). You made your own self look bad and that set the tone for your entire argument. I can disagree with others respectfully but I can't tolerate hogwash. Going down and telling every single person what their needs are is hogwash. I wasn't referring to just any "mature, happy, healthy relationship with frequent physically and spiritually fulfilling sex" as rabbits but sex doesn't mean that a relationship is healthy and mature. You put way too much in putting an object into an orifice. Many unhealthy relationships has frequent sex. What is your point? There is no such thing as a biological reward. Is there is a biological punishment as well. If there is a reward then there has to be a punishment as well.
No, you have a problem with disagreeing with others respectfully, which is quite apparent from the reps/personal IM's I am currently receiving about your previous posts.
I am glad AI is an option for some, but I would not want it to be the preferred way to reproduce.
Please include the specific quote where I misused "universal" so I know you are not also making that up. Also, I did not "go down and tell every single person what their needs are." I can't tolerate hogwash and lies.
Previous posters have referenced scientific data on the "biological reward" of healthier, longer lives of those in relationships with sexual intimacy. Do I really need to pull all the data back up for you? Review this thread or use Google... There is also an immediate biological reward in the brain hypothalumus and dopamine pleasure levels. And the biological reward that those who are the most sexually attractive (e.g. females with certain hip-to-waist ratios, males with strong, assymetrical features, etc.) tend to have more opportunities for willing mates.
Of course there is biological punishment - those who have less sexual intimacy may have higher stress, higher depression, more illness, live shorter lives, have fewer (if any) children, be less successful in careers...
If I look bad to you, I don't really care. You are not someone I want to impress.
Actually, I think both you and Yellow Jacket are correct.
Sure you can live without sex, as long as you're happy and have hobbies. But from what I've seen on here and real life, some people that are in forced celibacy are usually lonely, angry, depressed, or crazy.
I think Maslow meant that sex was a necessity only from a psychological standpoint.
In psychology something is only an issue if it impedes in the person in any sort of way. I have seen lonely, angry, depressed and crazy people regardless of of how much sex they have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMHO sex is a basic need
