Of course not. All you need is air, water, and food. You won’t die without sex. Maybe you will on the inside, but that’s different.
This assumes that sex is like an empty glass that gets full over time, which is also, imho, BS. By your logic, the older a man gets, the less sex he needs or wants, which is almost patently false.
Better still: It’s the Wizard Alien in Independence Hall!
Great episode. If only Cripple Summer could have continued the tradition.
The word need needs to be defined. Some posters are saying that sex is a need in the same way that an alcoholism has a need and some people are saying sex is not a need but just an addiction like alcoholism.
There is no point in debating how to use a term, just decide it.
So to make it simple lets say a person “needs” food, and an alcoholic “has to have” drink.
Now debate the issue.
I agree we need (ha!) to define the term “need”. Certainly, sex by at least some of the members of the human species is needed for the continuation of the species. But not, I think we’d all agree, by ALL of us. I’m not sure of the exact percentage needed to maintain genetic diversity, but it’s a lot less than 100%.
Maslow, with his famous heirarchy, did include “sex”, right about in the middle. However, I don’t think he was using “needs” to mean “imperatives”, nor was he saying that everything on there is vital to human life, or even normal psychological functioning. He even states clearly that most of us never meet our “needs” at the self-actualization level of his theory. Clearly, then, he didn’t mean that all his “needs” are vital to human life. He wasn’t making a list of vital facets of living; he was theorizing that until you meet the lesser “needs”, you probably won’t bother trying to meet the higher ones. (That is, if you’re homeless and hungry, you’re probably not too concerned with expressing yourself creatively, you’re looking for a meal and shelter.)
So, tempting as it is to provide an easy answer by appealing to his theory, I think we can tell Maslow to move along. His definition of “need” doesn’t seem to fit the OP.
Is sex vital to individual human life? No, not as a generalization. Most of us have periods of celibacy, from a few weeks to a lifetime, and we get along just fine.
Do I think humans work at their optimal level for a lifetime without any form of sexual release at all? No, I don’t, with perhaps rare exceptions which I suspect are linked to endocrine disorders, former sexual abuse or…something we just don’t understand yet. There are too many benefits from sex - from more vigorous immune systems to easing of depression - for me to believe that it’s not very, very important, even if it’s not a “need” for basic functioning.
Handwashing is not vital to human life, but the quality of life with it is a lot better than the quality of life without it!
Sex is a need, plain and simple. It exists in the same part of the brain is hunger, thirst, and a need for shelter. This has been proven physiologically time and time again. And I don’t doubt it, it makes sense, common sense actually, to me.
The question is how the individual deals with this need, and especially how an individual deals with the non-satisfaction of this basic need. Some just accept it, others become serial rapists. Most fall somewhere in between. Regardless of it being a need, the same as the person who robs a grocery store because they’re hungry, someone who rapes because they’re involuntary celibate is just as guilty of a crime. That’s just the rules of a polite society. If you can’t play by them then you go to jail. It may be unfair, unfortunate, and inevitable from their point of view, but too bad. In this case the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…
True, but you get into the fact that we don’t need nearly as much procreation as we currently have. It’s necessary that some people in society have sex, but not necessarily everyone.
On the other hand, I do view getting some form of sexual satisfaction as a need, but Masturbation and fantasy, though not ideal, can handle that. I’m probably about to get jumped for this, but I think that, while rape is about power, it’s also about people getting really horny from lack of sexual release, and letting those urges override their morality.
This doesn’t override the power dynamic, as sex itself is also often about power. For example, part of the reason a guy wants to have sex with a random hot woman is because he wants to believe he had the ability to get the girl to like him and want to have sex with him.
And I’m sure I don’t have to mention BDSM type scenarios.
Good Question…
I’m an alcoholic and I have not had a drink in years. I don’t even want one anymore but for a long time I thought I needed it and craved it.
I have not had sex in some time and I don’t think about it much. I wonder if it is harder on a man then for a woman because men are more visual? If I don’t have a man I love I don’t feel sexual. Well, Unless Colin Firth is on TV and then I may have a fantasy.
I am not promiscuous so I have this ideal that I have to be in love with the person I am intimate with. So unless I fall in love again it’s going to be a long dry spell. I’m ok with it. This is how I roll.
I like sex but I don’t need it to live a full life. I Like to get drunk but I don’t need to drink because it is better for me not to drink at all.
Some people never have sex in their entire lives and live to a ripe old age so it is not necessary. I call sex it a needful want.
seconded (or thirded or whatever)
From my own personal experience, I enjoy sex when I’m getting some, but honestly don’t miss it when I’m not. I might get horny from time to time (an urge) but if I end up not satisfying that urge I don’t suffer as I would if it was a need.
Nonsense. A broad based lack of procreation will, eventually be a bad consequence for the species as a whole, but lack of procreation is in no way deleterious to the individual. Indeed, considering the risks inherent in pregnancy and childbirth, it can be argued that for more than half the species a lack of procreation reflects an innate benefit. It could then be argued that on a percentage basis procreation represents an inherent threat to the species as a whole, based on individual risk. If you factor in the deleterious financial and health consequences attendant upon raising children to adulthood, the risk is even greater and affects an even larger percentage of the population.
There are dangers from pregnancy and childbirth, sure. But there are also dangers from not being pregnant, giving birth and lactating, like higher rates of breast, ovarian, uterine and endometrial cancer. Males who don’t ejaculate regularly have higher rates of prostate cancer (although it seems masturbation is as good as sex for that.) I’m not sure where the scales fall, but it’s not true that those who don’t breed have **no **added dangers from that decision.
I never said there is NO added danger, but considering the vast number of very real and present dangers all of us face in a day I’d say the marginally higher risk of some cancers is definitely outweighed by the dangers of eclampsia, toxemia, gestational diabetes, placenta previa or just the risks of caesarian delivery, which we all know is at ridiculously high percentages in the US.
And since none of those possible risks can actually be consclusively divorced from other more likely sources such as genetic, lifestyle and environmental causes I still stand by my statement that, for women, having children is more hazardous than not. Because if having kids was a panacea, no multipara would EVER have breast, ovarian, uterine and endometrial cancer. And we know that isn’t the case.
Just thought of posting a link to one of many articles out there on the health benefits of sex. Flip it around, and they’re the health risks of *not *having sex.
Sex is not just something that feels good, it has very specific and identifiable cardiovascular, immune, weight control and cancer prevention benefits, as well, of course, as emotional and psychological ones.
Yes, you did: “…but lack of procreation is in no way deleterious to the individual.”
It has no PROVEN, CONCLUSIVE risk, only conjectured risk which might be due to other causes entirely. Therefore, the statement is sound. After all, not ever nullipara ends up with cancer, and we know that a great many nuns live to a ripe old age and die of natural causes.
It’s also not necessary for the species for all of us to breathe.
And asking what the harm is from not reproducing is putting the cart before the horse. Not reproducing is, itself, the harm. Likewise, what’s the harm done in not getting food, water, or air? The harm is that when you starve to death or suffocate, you don’t reproduce.
This is a interesting way to put it, in a way it’s denial of a aspect of a full life.
Am I the only one who saw this thread and thought of the government issuing lonely people fuck stamps?
I hope so.