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.
Hopefully we can agree that there's a hierarchy of needs. At the top comes oxygen; miss that, and you'll die in minutes. Then comes water. Without water, you'll die in a few days. Next comes food. And so forth. Sex is somewhere on there too, but as others have said, the placement of sex on the hierarchy of needs is fairly low. After all, the feeling of being loved, and even of enjoying a modicum of respect, are also needs, as it were... but they're fairly low too. As we proceed down the list of needs, we pass into needs sufficiently low, that they're legitimately deemed to be mere wants.
We live in a competitive society. Compassion and social responsibility soften, to some extent, the hardest edges of competition, as regards meeting the most fundamental needs. Thus we have social welfare programs of various kinds, which may not necessarily function well or fairly, but they do exist. However, our society takes a dim view of social programs for meeting needs low on the aforementioned hierarchy, because meeting the needs of one person tends to abridge the privileges of another. It's not all zero-sum, but often it is.
Consider: suppose that involuntarily celibate men could apply to a government ministry for succor. They'd be checked for diseases and given an overall health evaluation. If they pass, they're provided with a prostitute, in exchange for performing labor for the state, or perhaps paying a fee. Sounds great, doesn't it? But who would provide the prostitution? Somebody would have to degrade themselves to engage in intimate contact with persons for whom they feel no affection. Thus the assertion, moral scruples aside, that prostitution is unfair.
And there's another point: even today, in our enlightened and pluralistic times (or what passes for such), we regard sex as part of the biology of reproduction. Obviously most sex-acts don't lead to conception, but there remains a deeply engrained societal association of sex implying babies. What does this mean? It means that those unable or unfit to have children should not be having sex. As a child-free person, I find such "thinking" to be offensive. But it remains highly prevalent. For a man (and typically it's a man) to not have access to sex essentially amounts to him losing the competition to reproduce. Lack of fitness for fatherhood therefore implies lack of access to sex. If society decides that person A isn't fatherhood-material, A won't have access to sex.
Clearly this implication often misfires. One hears much anecdotally that all sorts of persons unfit for parenthood are precisely those with the most kids. That may be so, but the judgment of society isn't the enlightened decree of Platonic philosopher-kings; it's the product of mass-culture, and is ultimately governed by market forces. And that brings me back to the concept of competition. What advantages, real or perceived, does a given man offer to a given woman? If these are few, or if at least in her perception these are few, the man won't be granted sexual access. He may cavil and grouse all he likes, shaking his fist at cruel fate and corrupted justice, but the only fate or justice that matter are what the free-market will bear, and the free-market owes nothing to anybody's standard of truth or anything else.
This is where I beleive legal and well regulated prostitution could help. Those men who for whatever reason can't have a regular sex life would have at least an option. Also it would help at least clean up part of the business. But then again I don't see it happening.
Oh boy, here is this prostitution suggestion again...
Working on social skills and/or having sex is not as difficult as this forum makes it out to be.
I'll post the truth and resent anyone telling me what to say or not say on this board. I do not lie or mislead people. With the right attitude what I said does apply to everyone. I have no concept what it's like to be weak-minded or brainwashed.
I don't need to "look into it." It's a junk theory by quack doctors. I'm healthy and have a good mental outlook.
Enough said.
I mentioned two of my friends in the same boat so that proves I am not a "rare exception."
People going without sex is not as rare as you think.
He is a doctor, he should have more than enough money to afford it.
Actually I wanted to be a doctor when I.was a child. That of course changed when I realized how much studying and work it involves and how expensive it would turn out to be. Sometimes I still think about how different my life would be if I was a doctor but when I see some of my customers who are doctors I change my mind again. Now back the original subject, I 'm not saying that prostitution is for everyone but there are men out there who could use it as an outlet wheather some of us agree with it or not. It would have to be properly regulated. We are all different people with different desires and goals in life. That is all I'm saying.
If a man or woman can relieve themselves, they can possibly go indefinitely without sex. I, personally, would get sick if I didn't get sex often.
This..on long dry spells I just do this but after a while I get hungry,,then I go on the hunter, online, bars,etc..Right now I have a fwb so it's not that bad.
About 20% is never married by age 40. Of course some people don't want to get married, but others are unable to. It is not unreasonable to assume 10% of men will hardly ever have sex. Considering how messed up some people are, then that is not a high percentage.
In general the ones who end up in that group are often unattractive and lack social/dating skills. Normal men may struggle to have sexual relationships during their teens, but they should be able to get some during their 20s
I know a few guys that would be considered "good looking" that are never in relationships because they don't want to date an overweight woman. It's a dog fight out there for an attractive woman, as things like income religion and education play a huge part in the dating game. I think it's hard for a lot of good looking guys to except the fact that they don't have the goods to be with an attractive woman.
Wrong on all accounts. I've been celibate 6 years and I suffer none of those symptoms. I also have 2 good friends of mine who are on longer droughts than the one I'm currently on. They also have none of those symptoms nor the "host of other serious problems." The theory you bought into by apparently some quack doctors is a lie and that's first hand knowledge.
More first hand knowledge for you is it's far worse for ones mental health being with someone that you shouldn't be with. Being without a partner is far better for you than the stress and turmoil of a relationship that one does not or should not be in. An example is my mental health is much stronger now than it was at the end of my marriage.
The Hurricane Kid is correct. Nothing much more to add what he accurately noted.
Wrong! Just because you've been celibate, doesn't mean the rest of society could be without consequence. This is why many prisons have allowed conjugal visits to prisoners. It cuts down on violence and rape within the prison dramatically. There are a number of studies that show that sex is an emotional need.
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.
