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.
Oh, come on. You're at risk of dying every minute and you're not going to be thinking about sex? Of course people would be thinking about sex.
No they won't. Off topic to a fictional TV show, because they are going to introduce drama as the scriptwriters see needed, but in reality during times of desperation, fear, terror, where the basic needs are of food, water, shelter are not met, a body does not think of sex in terms of a need. This was revealed during interview with POW's and concentration camp survivors where men were imprisoned for years when the topic of sex came up in interviews. They all universally indicated that they never really thought of the need for sex, the drive was suppressed. They thought about survival.
This is also consistent with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
These fictional characters are not being subjected to what POWs go through.
(*sigh* this is why I hate internet forums)
No of course not, but some of the basic needs that POWs suffer are the same - lack of food, lack of adequate shelter, lack of water...and most importantly no sense of security. You satisfy physical needs first - food, water, shelter. You satisfy security needs second - are you safe from harm? ....then and only then do the needs of intimacy factor in.
Really, you can bring this analogy with any situation related to disaster or war - natural disaster survivors, war refugees. Forget about POWs, that's not really the topic or the point. Since this is the internet, I guess I also have to do the Captain Obvious route and state that doesn't mean you can't have sex when you are in the midst of disaster otherwise someone else respond "but wait a second...". It simply means, your mind isn't focused on scoring with that hot zombie-killing chick. By having the fictional characters in Walking Dead not focused on the cheap drama element of "hooking up", it's being realistic to what would occur in a real life disaster of that magnitude.
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 Oh, come on. You're at risk of dying every
minute and you're not going to be thinking about sex? Of course people would be
thinking about sex.
(*sigh* this is why I hate internet forums)
No of course not, but some of the basic needs that POWs suffer are the same - lack of food, lack of adequate shelter, lack of water...and most importantly no sense of security. You satisfy physical needs first - food, water, shelter. You satisfy security needs second - are you safe from harm? ....then and only then do the needs of intimacy factor in.
Really, you can bring this analogy with any situation related to disaster or war - natural disaster survivors, war refugees. Forget about POWs, that's not really the topic or the point. Since this is the internet, I guess I also have to do the Captain Obvious route and state that doesn't mean you can't have sex when you are in the midst of disaster otherwise someone else respond "but wait a second...". It simply means, your mind isn't focused on scoring with that hot zombie-killing chick. By having the fictional characters in Walking Dead not focused on the cheap drama element of "hooking up", it's being realistic to what would occur in a real life disaster of that magnitude.
Which is why I said in an earlier post, once those basic necessities were met, they would think about sex. Because the example I pointed out, them securing the prison. They knew they could plant crops, they had a safe place to sleep. On the farm (albeit out in a car and in the pharmacy) and in the book store was the other times we've seen two characters having sex - again, basic security and needs were met. They aren't like POWs at that point. So just because I didn't go into depth THIS TIME, doesn't mean I don't have the ability to claim your analogy is wrong and not just for sake of being contrary. You aren't the first person to bring this up and we've gone over it before.
Which is why I said in an earlier post, once those basic necessities were met, they would think about sex. Because the example I pointed out, them securing the prison. They knew they could plant crops, they had a safe place to sleep. On the farm (albeit out in a car and in the pharmacy) and in the book store was the other times we've seen two characters having sex - again, basic security and needs were met. They aren't like POWs at that point. So just because I didn't go into depth THIS TIME, doesn't mean I don't have the ability to claim your analogy is wrong and not just for sake of being contrary. You aren't the first person to bring this up and we've gone over it before.
OK OK. I got that then and can agree. I was more responding to one of the threads that said one thinks of sex when you are "at risk of dying any minute", as if one emotion correlates with the other. That's just bad TV fiction.
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.
