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.
In order for it to be a basic human need. It has to be a need for all when clearly it isn't. It's not a universal need to have sex, love, be loved and especially to breed. That's the problem it isn't a basic need because it would kill you if it truly was like food and water.
I think there is a universal, basic human need to perpetuate the species and avoid extinction. I think there is a basic human need to seek sexual intimacy. I think animals very often choose sex over food/water, and humans are also animals. I think there is a biological reason why those in relationships (likely with more sex) are healthier and live longer. I think there is a reason why sex stimulates high dopamine and the greatest pleasure centers of the brain so that humans are reinforced to seek it. I think natural selection favors those who are able to attract/obtain good sexual partners. I think it is survival of the fittest - the most sexually fit.
So yes, I consider sex a basic biological need, whether one understands that or not, regardless of the outliers who do not seek sex. One may do things to override the acting on sexual need, but it is still a basic human need all the same. Those who discount it are the ones being illogical IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
Yes because those who can't get it through their head are probably hyper-emotional headcases.
BTW, I am about as logical, scientific, non-hyper emotional head-case as they get. Hopefully, that was not a personal attack.
I think there is a universal, basic human need to perpetuate the species and avoid extinction. I think there is a basic human need to seek sexual intimacy. I think animals very often choose sex over food/water, and humans are also animals. I think there is a biological reason why those in relationships (likely with more sex) are healthier and live longer. I think there is a reason why sex stimulates high dopamine and the greatest pleasure centers of the brain so that humans are reinforced to seek it. I think natural selection favors those who are able to attract/obtain good sexual partners. I think it is survival of the fittest - the most sexually fit.
So yes, I consider sex a basic biological need, whether one understands that or not, regardless of the outliers who do not seek sex. One may do things to override the acting on sexual need, but it is still a basic human need all the same. Those who discount it are the ones being illogical IMO.
BTW, I am about as logical, scientific, non-hyper emotional head-case as they get. Hopefully, that was not a personal attack.
That is the difference. You judge others by telling them they are suppressing something natural when in reality it is non-existent for that person. You can't override something that doesn't exist. Natural selection favors the one who can survive. Natural selection is on an individual level not just a species level. Animals do not choose food and water. That's goes against the point. If they are not consuming food and water then they can't be healthy enough to attract a partner for sexual activity and they die.
Sex does not kill you if you lack it as a result it is not a basic need. Sex can be a need when one prioritizes itself as such also for the sake of the planet not everybody can have basic human need to breed because the world would have already had a massive downturn in the quality of life for the entire species due to overpopulation. You can't tell me that I need to have sex. Humans (well some) are mentally advanced to know what they want and to actually prioritize things in life and put value on things. There are people who try sex and despite the feelings one person may get from sex not all people receive pleasure from it. Those people are not reinforced to seek it. Let me guess the dopamine didn't do its job?
Yeah, they are illogical for not following the crowd and engaging in something they might naturally not appeal to them. You know the earth can't support the human race if everybody truly had the basic need to have sex and breed. Natural selection takes care of that as well. Sexual fitness means nothing in the grand scheme of things as there will always be people who don't have the desire to have sex and breed. Yes, relationships are healthier and live longer. Let me guess you interviewed every single person with a relationship and asked about their sex life? Sure you have..... That's illogical on your part to think that every person on earth who is asexual and doesn't want to breed really want to deep down. That they are suppressing. They have a role to play in the grand scheme of things as you who is controlled by your perceived instinct. I don't care if you think that people who are asexual are missing something or defective but they will still live whole lives and unlike you they don't "need" to have to have sex. I'm in a sexual relationship myself but I don't need to have sex. I don't really want to but I do it for my partner's sake. Food and water are truly universal, Sex is on an individual basis hence it is not a basic human need. It is a need for some and not a need for others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
BTW, I am about as logical, scientific, non-hyper emotional head-case as they get. Hopefully, that was not a personal attack.
I don't care if you think you're logical, scientific or not hyper-emotional. If you aren't then why entertain my comment by replying to it? I don't care about your supposed disclaimer.
Sex is only considered a need in a society that uses it to sell every product under the sun to us as well as using it for entertainment. The next time you watch an evening of network prime time television notice how it all oozes with sexual references and images.
Then there is the theory that a highly sexualized society will keep men working harder as sex is like a carrot on the end of a stick.
There is no doubt that we all have sex drives and have the desire to have sex but there is also no doubt that we live in over-sexualized times and therefore make it more important than it really is.
Having read through the thread and some of the response I personally believe that I am in this camp.
I think it's one thing to have had at least one solid, sexual relationship with a partner and afterwards be able to decide for yourself, "That whole thing isn't for me" or "I feel like it's not a big deal," and it's another thing to have never made an effort to get there (despite being curious) and trying to ask other people who have dabbled in regular relationships and sex on their experiences on the matter, which obviously differ a whole lot.
This guy has never dated. People are saying sex is or isn't a big deal, but that opinion is relevant to their psychological and physical needs as explored by themselves, no one else. These opinions can't be interpreted as correct or incorrect unless the OP knows the effect of sex on himself.
And that brings me to the point of yes, he hasn't dropped dead from lack of sex. BUT he has to help himself release 2-3 times a day? There's a disconnect between this fact and saying, "Oh if he's made it this far and doesn't know what he's missing, it's not a big deal and he's living a normal, healthy life."
On an individual level, well it depends on the individual. On average...while it's clearly not as important as food/water/oxygen, I think it's pretty damn close. Most people who aren't having sex...or are having bad sex...aren't as satisfied with their lives as they'd like to be...and some of them decide to do something to "compensate" for that.
I agree with those who stated that sex is an instinct.
Sex...especially with a partner that you're highly compatible with...has clear benefits physically, emotionally, psychologically and health-wise. Frequent good sex is one of the best ways to keep yourself stress-free. I think it's important for people to get sexual experience (ideally in a LTR) early in life (late teens or 20s) before the brain is fully developed. Part of discovering who you really are as an overall person is learning about yourself sexually and what you want in a partner. That is only possible via experience. Masturbation, while nice, is not an adequate substitute over the long-term.
It's hard to believe that a guy can make it all the way to 52 without ever having intercourse with a woman. Even most people with severe confidence issues manage to find a partner by their 30s. Workaholics that work 100+ hrs/week eventually manage to revise their priorities and have some sort of intimate relationship. At first I thought the OP was trolling. Something is very wrong with the OP and it's likely something mental since his sex drive seems to be alright. It is natural, organic and instinctual to strongly crave sex and intimacy and to act on that with a woman in some way (LTR, FWB, etc). The escort option aside (a bad idea)...I'm afraid it will be very difficult for the OP to find a woman and make it past the first few dates. Even if he successfully overcomes his issues, simply being inexperienced in sex and relationships at his age is probably going to be a big red flag.
On an individual level, well it depends on the individual. On average...while it's clearly not as important as food/water/oxygen, I think it's pretty damn close. Most people who aren't having sex...or are having bad sex...aren't as satisfied with their lives as they'd like to be...and some of them decide to do something to "compensate" for that.
I agree with those who stated that sex is an instinct.
Sex...especially with a partner that you're highly compatible with...has clear benefits physically, emotionally, psychologically and health-wise. Frequent good sex is one of the best ways to keep yourself stress-free. I think it's important for people to get sexual experience (ideally in a LTR) early in life (late teens or 20s) before the brain is fully developed. Part of discovering who you really are as an overall person is learning about yourself sexually and what you want in a partner. That is only possible via experience. Masturbation, while nice, is not an adequate substitute over the long-term.
It's hard to believe that a guy can make it all the way to 52 without ever having intercourse with a woman. Even most people with severe confidence issues manage to find a partner by their 30s. Workaholics that work 100+ hrs/week eventually manage to revise their priorities and have some sort of intimate relationship. At first I thought the OP was trolling. Something is very wrong with the OP and it's likely something mental since his sex drive seems to be alright. It is natural, organic and instinctual to strongly crave sex and intimacy and to act on that with a woman in some way (LTR, FWB, etc). The escort option aside (a bad idea)...I'm afraid it will be very difficult for the OP to find a woman and make it past the first few dates. Even if he successfully overcomes his issues, simply being inexperienced in sex and relationships at his age is probably going to be a big red flag.
I agree 100% with this comment. While I have a hard time finding a LTR, I still managed to have casual sex because I felt that it was important that I at least have some type of sexual experience as an adult. I can't imagine going through my 20s and beyond as a virgin. I'd be an emotional wreck
That is the difference. You judge others by telling them they are suppressing something natural when in reality it is non-existent for that person. You can't override something that doesn't exist. Natural selection favors the one who can survive. Natural selection is on an individual level not just a species level. Animals do not choose food and water. That's goes against the point. If they are not consuming food and water then they can't be healthy enough to attract a partner for sexual activity and they die.
Sex does not kill you if you lack it as a result it is not a basic need. Sex can be a need when one prioritizes itself as such also for the sake of the planet not everybody can have basic human need to breed because the world would have already had a massive downturn in the quality of life for the entire species due to overpopulation. You can't tell me that I need to have sex. Humans (well some) are mentally advanced to know what they want and to actually prioritize things in life and put value on things. There are people who try sex and despite the feelings one person may get from sex not all people receive pleasure from it. Those people are not reinforced to seek it. Let me guess the dopamine didn't do its job?
Yeah, they are illogical for not following the crowd and engaging in something they might naturally not appeal to them. You know the earth can't support the human race if everybody truly had the basic need to have sex and breed. Natural selection takes care of that as well. Sexual fitness means nothing in the grand scheme of things as there will always be people who don't have the desire to have sex and breed. Yes, relationships are healthier and live longer. Let me guess you interviewed every single person with a relationship and asked about their sex life? Sure you have.....
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.
Even if he successfully overcomes his issues, simply being inexperienced in sex and relationships at his age is probably going to be a big red flag.
There's gotta be an accessible group of available older women who also have a disinterest in sex. I feel like this guy has a possible match out there in the world, but the pathetic reality is he seems to have severe self-confidence issues that were never addressed through his platonic friendships with women.
Perhaps sex is unnecessary to you as you have never known sex. The desire to connect with others physically leads to the sex act. To those who feel the urge and act on it do see sex as a basic need. Just about all of creation engages in sex which further supports the notion that it is a basic need.
The problem, is that a real life woman can't compete with the "perfect" images on the page.
In my opinion, a perfect image on a page or a video cannot compete with a real life woman.
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.
You know the earth can't support the human race if everybody truly had the basic need to have sex and breed. Natural selection takes care of that as well. Sexual fitness means nothing in the grand scheme of things as there will always be people who don't have the desire to have sex and breed. Yes, relationships are healthier and live longer. Let me guess you interviewed every single person with a relationship and asked about their sex life? Sure you have..... That's illogical on your part to think that every person on earth who is asexual and doesn't want to breed really want to deep down. That they are suppressing. They have a role to play in the grand scheme of things as you who is controlled by your perceived instinct. I don't care if you think that people who are asexual are missing something or defective but they will still live whole lives and unlike you they don't "need" to have to have sex. I'm in a sexual relationship myself but I don't need to have sex. I don't really want to but I do it for my partner's sake. Food and water are truly universal, Sex is on an individual basis hence it is not a basic human need. It is a need for some and not a need for others.
