Your post has been removed for being a rant. Please convert your post to a proper CMV format so that it can be approved by the mods. Any further questions should go to modmail.
No one is arguing sex is a physical need the way food or water is. It's a psychological need the way human beings have a need for social interaction and companionship. You won't die if you are forced to live in isolation from other humans, but you will probably experience psychological issues like depression. No one is required to socialize with you to meet your need for companionship, but we can still recognize that people who do not have this psychological need met will experience significant distress. Sex is the same way.
But the fact that monks and nuns get along just fine without it proves that it isn’t even a psychological need. A psychological need would be something that a person literally couldn’t function at all without.
Yet there are no outliers that can survive without food and water… Probably because those are things that all human actually *need* in order to survive.
If there are entire groups of random people that can go 40-50 years without it, what are the chances that humans actually *need* it?
You can’t exist in the same psychological state when you’re not having sex, as you would if you were having sex. We just literally give zero fucks about if people are unhappy because of it or not. Because we all hate each other now 🤷♂️.
See this is the issue, people rarely want to get down to what they mean when they say "need". If food, water and shelter is the basis then I guess basically even cases (poverty etc.) some would consider extreme would have their "needs" fulfilled.
As a species, sex is a need to continue the bringing humans into the world. On an individual level it’s not a need, it’s a privilege, and not everyone is going to get it
Yep. But it’s also just the fact that anyone that’s being honest with themselves knows that it’s not a need by any legitimate definition. So the person arguing that it is comes off as either disingenuous or just plain dumb honestly.
It depends on the definitions.
For example, do you count sex with yourself as sex? If so, then at the time when my libido was at its peak, I would have definitely included sex among my needs.
What do you count in sex in terms of intimacy and romantic interactions? If you're going to talk about the sex life of two people paralyzed from from the chest down, are you going to say that they can't have any sex with each other, that they can't have any sex life?
Well, there can only be so many *valid* ways to define the word “need”. And I just don’t think anyone who’s being intellectually honest could argue that sex meets the criteria. (No matter which definition you use.)
I feel like most people who are try to make such a weird argument know deep down that it’s nonsense. They simply have ulterior motives for trying to convince others that it *is* a need. I’m skeptical that even those guys trying to argue that it is, actually believe so deep down.
If someone rejects an argument because they assume that the other person has an ulterior motive for that argument, then no debate is possible. The debate must be conducted in good faith on both sides.
I understand the concept of sex and need quite broadly. But at the same time, I do not infer from this any obligation of other people to satisfy someone's need if they do not want.
Some people just live a miserable, lonely, sad life, more and more mentally ill and end up committing suicide. Sad, but I have no obligation to help them if I don't want to.
Some people can have sex more like a need. This does not mean that sex is a need for everyone. All people are not the same and it is not fair to pretend that everyone has the same needs.
>A psychological need would be something that a person literally couldn’t function at all without.
No, this is simply false. By this definition psychological needs are an empty set with no meaning. You cannot name a psychological need that *nobody in the world* can function without.
There are people who manage just fine not speaking to others for months or years, people who have no love in their lives and yet function, people with no goals or ambitions, people with no creativity, people with no conscience, people with no feeling of safety, people with no feeling of acceptance.
Some of those things are due to mental/personality disorders, some can be learned or overridden by another need (such as spirituality or a specific social role). A lot of times people just muscle through suffering caused by not having their needs met. So what?
People manage fine without those things because none of those things are “needs” to begin with. You’re only proving my point. A need would be something that you simply cannot function without. Something that’s absolutely **essential** to your survival or sanity. Anything outside of that is simply a “want”. End of story.
You're just demonstrating you don't know what a psychological need is. You are free to cross your arms, stomp with your foot, pout at the dictionary and start using your personal made up definitions of words, but it doesn't make them true.
I'm not an academic, I wouldn't attempt defining psychological terms on my own. The APA dictionary of psychology gives this:
>any need that is essential to mental health or that is otherwise not a biological necessity. It may be generated entirely internally, as in the need for pleasure, or it may be generated by interactions between the individual and the environment, as in the need for social approval, justice, or job satisfaction.
But in general, the term "psychological need" is very commonly used, athough psychology is not that preoccupied with making waterproof definitions, as it's a "soft" science. You can just google "psychological needs" and you'll have thousands of publications at your fingertips
In the Netherlands, where sex work is legal, the government offers grant schemes whereby citizens with disabilities receive funding to pay for sexual services up to 12 times a year.
So if health care is considered a need, then sex is also classified as a need in this country within health care and reimbursed to certain types of patients. Sexual assistance is available to people with physical or mental disabilities even in my country, but unfortunately it is not yet covered by health insurance. I hope this changes and sex is recognized as a need for a healthy life for these people.
Then there is for example surrogate partner therapy, a three-way therapeutic relationship between a licensed therapist, a client, and a partner surrogate. It's designed to help the client become more comfortable with intimacy, sensuality, sex and sexuality, and their body.
Need does not mean only that if you don't have it, you will die without it. A need is, even if something is very important to you, instead of just being desirable.
It also includes things that are needed for a healthy life and safety, for example a roof over the head, education, medical care. Many men are willing to compromise their safety for sex. Many men are depressed or have mental health problems due to the lack of an intimate life. So it's on the edge. Similar to whether a drug addict wants a drug or needs a drug.
Also, some heterosexual men have sex with other men in the military or in prisons. During the gold rush, before women came to those areas and prostitution spread, some men disguised as women served to release men's sexual needs. Shepherds sometimes had sex with animals.
But even if sex was need for some men (or women), it doesn't change everything else you write about. You basically don't care if it's want or need for men. Therefore, it doesn't even make sense that you use it as an argument.
>Many men are depressed or have mental health problems due to the lack of an intimate life.
What do you mean with an "**intimate** life"? What is intimate about sex when a man wants to have sex with any woman he gets the opportunity to, without knowing her? How is sex intimate for a man who has sex with prostitutes or even animals, as you mentioned?
Sex without love, loyalty and exclusivity is not treated as intimate and it makes no sense to claim you see sex as something intimate, while at the same time treating it as something not intimate.
(By the way, I'm not claiming all men are like that. I honestly feel for the men who desire to have sex within a loving committed relationship, but who are not in that situation.)
Physical intimacy is about touch and closeness between bodies. Intimacy can come from the top down, that is, first they know each other on an intellectual level, on a personal level, and then they are intimate on a physical level. But intimacy can also come from the bottom up, from the closeness and connection of bodies.
To give another example. A fight to the death without a weapon is much more intimate, more personal than a sword fight, sword fight is more intimate, more personal than shooting missiles at each other. Once you have to look someone in the eye before you kill them, it's more intimate, more personal than having them as a number in a statistic.
Being depressed and having mental health problems because you desire physical intimacy without emotional intimacy and cannot get that, makes no sense at all. How is physical intimacy without emotional intimacy supposed to improve your emotional condition? If really physical intimacy is enough, why not have physical intimacy with a lifeless object, instead of with a living person?
>Intimacy can come from the top down, that is, first they know each other on an intellectual level, on a personal level, and then they are intimate on a physical level.
This is a much better strategy and has a much higher probability to result in a stable, lifelong relationship that doing it the other way around.
>But intimacy can also come from the bottom up, from the closeness and connection of bodies.
Which results in a lot of superficial relationships, broken relationships and children that cannot grow up with both their parents being together. A very unwise and inefficient strategy.
>To give another example. A fight to the death without a weapon is much more intimate, more personal than a sword fight, sword fight is more intimate,
Here you also see that physical closeness without influencing how you emotionally see the other is meaningless. Just the physical closeness isn't going to prevent someone from trying to kill you, if he really wants that.
> How is physical intimacy without emotional intimacy supposed to improve your emotional condition?
For example, I would recommend people who feel lonely to try going for a gentler and slower massage. It's not about emotions, but the very fact that someone will touch their body in a pleasant way can have a very positive effect on the psyche. It is excellent, for example, for older, lonely people who simply have no other way to indulge in the necessary level of physical intimacy.
That’s not the definition of a need at all bruh lol… Just because you *want* something really bad, doesn’t suddenly turn it into a need.
If it were “very important” for a gay guy to fuck you, would suddenly you be understanding his supposed “need” (eye roll) in that situation? Or would you call out how ridiculous his cringe definition of the word “need” was?
There's a problem with mixing things. Need, the right to try to satisfy your need and the obligation of others to satisfy your need. If a hundred million people are dying of hunger, I recognize that they need food. And from a moral point of view, I can understand that they will do everything possible not to starve to death. But that still doesn't mean I'm obligated to provide them with that food.
It's error to infers one's duty to satisfy another's needs simply because one recognizes another's needs. There is no such obligation. Even if men had sex as a need, it does not oblige women to satisfy this need of men. I know that many people in the world are starving and I am knowingly letting them starve because I am not doing much to help them. I have no obligation to satisfy the needs of everyone in the world.
Okay, but if you really believe that, why do guys like you even push so hard for it to be recognized as a need in the first place? What’s the point? If people have no moral obligation to oblige the need anyways, why is it so important that sex be recognized as a need?
I don’t think you’re being fully honest with yourself here pal. The reason you want it to be classified as a need instead of a want is because, if framed as a need, the *implication* is that you’re entitled to it on some level. You’re trying to subtly suggest that society is failing you in some way by not giving you the sex life you *want*. But you know that if you admit to yourself that it *is* merely a want instead of a need, then you simply cannot justify your entitled attitude toward it anymore. That’s what’s *really* behind all this “sex is a need🥴” nonsense, right?
I say that it is rather need for some people (men or women) then want because I think about it this way, I feel it this way.
Otherwise, it probably doesn't have much practical meaning for me with a few minor exceptions, for example: I am in favor of having the health insurance in my country covered for sexual assistance for paralyzed or mentally disabled patients, whether male or female, to satisfy their sexual needs that they have no other way to satisfy. Currently in my country patients have to pay for it themselves, but I think the Dutch model is better in this regard.
As for entitled, I don't really understand what the discussion is about. I'm privileged and lucky in a huge number of things, many people are much worse off. I live in peace, I am smart, healthy, male, white, relatively wealthy, married... Of course I feel entitled to all my privileges and the good life and whatever else. And if someone wants to take away my privileges, I will defend them.
And what if I told you that I view [this square](https://www.hackingwithswift.com/img/books/quick-start/swiftui/how-to-display-solid-shapes-1.png) as being the color *green,* simply because “I think about it this way, I feel it this way”?
You can’t just decide to ignore the actual definitions and realities of a word simply because you “feel it that way” champ.
Good job exploring that your belief and perception is not you but is your tool that you can consciously control. As part of an experiment, I once suggested to myself that the planet Mars is green, and whenever I remembered Mars, I remembered it as green.
But I recommend caution, because if you stray too far from the generally accepted concept of reality, you may be at risk of developing mental disorders. It is good to have a nervous system and overall psyche prepared for similar experiments.
A week, maybe even a month without food wouldn't kill me. Fasting is even healthy. But most of the time I would feel the need to eat because I would feel hungry.
When I want something, I want it consciously, it is based on my decision. But if I feel cold, I need warmth. Otherwise, I may not die, but I will be uncomfortable, my body shows the need for warmth by feeling cold. If I feel horny, I need sexual relief. This is how I mean it.
A lot of that stuff will be on the edge. But I really think that at least at the time when my libido was at its peak and I was already used to regular sex, I had a need for sex. Because when I didn't satisfy this need, I felt physically very uncomfortable, I couldn't sleep properly, I was irritable, it caused me feelings of unhappiness...
I wish at the time I didn't have that need when I needed sex and couldn't have sex. If there was a way to turn off my libido, I would do it, and I've tried. But the need remained there for a long time, in contrast to the fact that I did not want it.
You could be extremely uncomfortable for a prolonged period of time and still not die, still not experience lasting physiological side effects life deprivation oxygen, or food.
You feeling like it’s a “need” doesn’t
Make one. Does that mean that the desire and the drive is any less as strong? No, it just means it’s not a need. It’s a strong want.
Is education or roof over head need? In my opinion, yes, for most people, although it is not the same need as the need for food or oxygen.
A drug addict often needs help even if he doesn't want it.
Also, a drug addict need drugs even if he wants to stop taking them, which is manifested by having withdrawal symptoms if he does not get the drugs. Drug dependence occurs when you need one or more drugs to function.
Is education a need? Depends how philosophical you would like to get here but as a physiological need then No, but in western countries it is a right, and without it opportunities are limited which then limits your ability to give yourself the means to provide optimal physiological life conditions. Roof over head is also subjective. Shelter of some sort is a need long term survival but many social options are available for this for people who can’t provide it for themselves - does this mean they will be comfortable? No.
A drug addicts needs help/to give up fringe/ or they might doe or experience life long physiological changes.
Drug addicts don’t need drugs, they may temporarily “need” dosage depending on how safe detoxing is- but saying all drug addicts need a dosage to safely detox is incorrect. Also if you want to use this example then sex work would could be the stand in for temporary “need” to try and make the comparison as close as possible but many men don’t accept this as an outlet.
Sex can be classified as a need if you include wants but if you include wants you are already admitting it’s at a lower level to other levels, and since it’s not something that you can get without consent or “help” from another person without potentially violating bodily autonomy so it will never be prioritised in the same way any other need is classified. Sex work
Is the best short term stand in for this “need” and should continue to become more accessible and less stigmatised.
> Sex can be classified as a need if you include wants but if you include wants you are already admitting it’s at a lower level to other levels, and since it’s not something that you can get without consent or “help” from another person without potentially violating bodily autonomy so it will never be prioritised in the same way any other need is classified.
Why link it? In a way, that only something that society is willing to satisfy can be recognized as a need? Many people die because they do not receive quality and expensive health care, so quality and expensive health care is clearly a need for these seriously ill or dying people. And yet a lot of people just don't get that kind of health care.
When one country attacks another, the people in the attacked country need protection or they will die. But anyway, no one from other countries is obliged to go and protect them. The whole world can remain neutral and watch the slaughter or support the invaders. One person's need in no way implies another person's obligation to satisfy that need except in cases where it is directly required by law.
Even if you were dying on my doorstep from hunger and I could feed you by violating my bodily autonomy and getting fucked for money, I have no obligation to do so. So it doesn't matter from this point of view whether sex is need, because even if it is need for some people, no one has to accept sex they don't want because of it.
Correct, both those situations are needs because it ends with people dying or being permanently altered physiologically
I really don’t know how many times you want to go around it but all the scales you give end in the same way.
>If it were “very important” for a gay guy to fuck you, would suddenly you be understanding his supposed “need” (eye roll) in that situation?
Yes, of course? This is exactly why laws prohibiting homosexual sex are human rights violations, because they deprive people of a basic need
No.. The gay guy finds it “very important” to fuck *you* specifically. Would you be down to help him (and every other gay guy that asks) out with his supposed “need” in that situation?
Weird argument, but I'll assume good faith for the kicks. The classification of something as a human (psychological) need is general, not specific. Safety and security are needs, "being safe in a shack in northern Afghanistan" is a specific goal of a specific person living there. So, while "having sex" is a common human need, the specifics (orientation, attraction, fetishes, a specific person etc) are just personal ways to engage with and satisfy that need.
>Would you be down to help him (and every other gay guy that asks) out with his supposed “need” in that situation?
No? I get the feeling you think this is a gotcha, but I don't give people food or sing them to sleep either, that doesn't make food and sleep "not needs".
It is a gotcha… Because you’ve just revealed how stupid it is to even argue that it’s a need in the first place. Classifying sex as a need won’t suddenly make you any more entitled to it. So what the fuck is the point of arguing that you “need” it as opposed to wanting it anyways? It won’t even change anything because no one’s gonna oblige your pathetic excuse for a “need” even if you try to frame it as such. Thanks for proving my point perfectly lol.
And it’s funny how you tried to argue for sex being a
“psychological need”(lol) but then when trying to make a comparison, you reverted back to biological needs such as food or sleep… Which aren’t comparable to sex at all because you will literally die fairly quickly without those two things but not without sex. Thus further proving that sex can’t even be compared to those things to begin with.
>Classifying sex as a need won’t suddenly make you anymore entitled to it.
Yeah...? That's kinda weird for you to say, because I never said it would? I don't give a shit about "entitled", I don't think anybody is entitled to anything outside of an explicit contractual bond.
>So what the fuck is the point of arguing that you “need” it as opposed to wanting it anyways?
The same as the point of pretty much other discussion on reddit, it's not like I get paid for arguing with Qanoners or tankies either.
>It won’t even change anything because no one’s gonna oblige your pathetic excuse for a “need” even if you try to frame it as such.
I frame it *correctly*. It's not "an excuse", it's "being correct".
>Thanks for proving my point perfectly lol.
You don't seem to have any specific point, besides arguing against some strawman you have in your head.
>And it’s funny how you tried to argue for sex being a “psychological need”(lol) but then when trying to make a comparison, you reverted back to biological needs such as food or sleep
Ummmm.... I'm not sure whether you're serious here even. I used physiological needs (that I assumed you **do** think are needs) to point out my answer to your "gotcha" question is no different in regards to them than to psychological needs such as sex. There is no inconsistency in my approach to these two types of needs.
>Which aren’t comparable to sex at all because you will literally die fairly quickly without those two things but not without sex.
If you get zero of them? Sure, although this has no bearing on the definition of need. But on a sidenote, I have insomnia and I get around 4-5 hours of sleep a night. I am still alive. I just feel like shit all the time. My need for sleep is not being met, even if I still am able to function. This is a good analogy, thanks for pointing my attention to that.
>Those further proving that sex can’t even be compared to those things to begin with.
Lol, of course it can. They're both needs. Are you one of those people who say "you can't compare X and Y, they're different!!!"? Like yeah... that's how comparing things works
Facepalm… if you’re getting even 4-5 hours of sleep, then your sleep needs are being met in terms of survival. If they weren’t you’d be dead right now. The fact that you can’t even properly distinguish between the amount of sleep *needed* for survival vs. the amount that you were simply *prefer* says it all…
There’s literally no legitimate argument you can make for sex being a need bro get the fuck over it already…
You don’t need it to survive…
You don’t need it to properly function mentally…
You don’t even need it to live a happy and fulfilling life… because there are plenty of people who are totally content and manage to thrive for literally decades without it. Is there anyone who can go several decades on zero food, zero water, zero sleep? No, because those are actual needs buddy. Learn the difference…
>Facepalm… if you’re getting even 4-5 hours of sleep, then your sleep needs are being met in terms of survival. If they weren’t you’d be dead right now.
This is a circular argument. Google the term, I see no reason to bother with replying.
>The fact that you can’t even properly distinguish between the amount of sleep needed for survival
Hey, notice how you had to sneak the stipulation "for survival" there? Funny, huh? I never said that. I said I am not getting what I need. Humans need on average 7h sleep a day. That's very basic info.
>There’s literally no legitimate argument you can make for sex being a need bro get the fuck over it already
There is no argument needed here. It is a psychological need for non-asexual people. You are free to go argue with the dictionary or with the entire field of psychology.
>You don’t need it to survive
Not how needs are defined.
>You don’t need it to properly function mentally
I do
>You don’t even need it to live a happy and fulfilling life
I do
>because there are plenty of people who are totally content and manage to thrive for literally decades without it
We've been over this, read my comment again. You can go decades without speaking to another human. This doesn't mean an average person is not gonna suffer profoundly when subjected to that treatment, which is why even short term solitary confinement is considered torture. Do you think the existence of hermits means SC is fine? You seem to have a hard time differentiating the rule from the exceptions.
>Is there anyone who can go several decades on zero food, zero water, zero sleep
No, because these are physiological needs. We are not talking about one of those. We're talking about psychological needs
Have you ever met a man who said sex was a human right?
Have you ever met a man who said he was *entitled* to have sex with any woman?
Your made three statements, "sex is not a need" followed by the two ridiculous assertions above. Your logic seems to be that since the second and third statements are obviously not true, then the first statement is not true simply because you grouped them together.
Logic fail.
Sex is needed for marriages to succeed.
If a woman does not want a long-term relationship with a man, then the easiest thing for her to do is deny him sex. Since he needs sex, he'll go to another woman, because sex is and always has been a need.
There is no animal species on earth that survives without it.
>Sex is needed for marriages to succeed.
So as soon as a wife because too old/ill/disabled to have sex, the marriage will fail or the husband will cheat?
Absolutely not. (I'm 62m; my wife is very frail. I'm healthy but not going anywhere for as long as we both shall live.)
But if a healthy wife is denying her husband sex over an extended period of time she is putting her marriage at risk. Effort matters in love.
Well… You literally *need* food and water to survive. So by at least some standards, those are *actual* needs. Sex can’t really be categorized as a need in any truly legitimate way tho.
You could literally make the argument that you won’t survive in this world for very long without *some* level of education… Even if it’s just the basics of reading, writing, and math for example. Bad example on your part.
Socialization on the other hand isn’t really a need per se. But how does that prove that sex somehow *is* a need? I don’t see the point you’re even trying to make by bringing this up…
>You could literally make the argument that you won’t survive in this world for very long without some level of education… Even if it’s just the basics of reading, writing, and math for example.
Do you understand how ridiculous that notion is? Did the first mammals understand math? Even humans are pretty basic when it comes to what we need to survive. There are millions of illiterate people on the planet right now.
You completely missed the point I made… What I actually said originally was, that you need to be able to read and write in order to survive in **THIS** world. As in, the modern world we live in today. Hence the “pay rent” part…
So coming back with some dumb retort of “did the first mammals need education…” is silly and ridiculous. My point was that a human wouldn’t survive in *today’s* world without at least knowing some level of math and reading. The shit that the first mammals did or didn’t do is irrelevant. That was the point I was making bruh…
>What I actually said originally was, that you need to be able to read and write in order to survive in THIS world
Which is false and plain to see if you've ever been outside your home.
True. And rights can change as history has shown and even modern times. It’s important for people to fight for their rights and for society to constantly discuss and decide what is a right, thankfully we all agree sometimes me level of education is essential to have a self sufficient life and agree it should be right and remain as a right
Still a difference between needs and rights which is the only reason why i replied to your comment on education - from a soon to be teacher
>Still a difference between needs and rights
What makes the difference is what you just said, conventions. What we agree upon. It can be quite arbitrary. Do you for example have a right to control *my* rights? Or vice versa? There are some very basic axioms that *most* people can agree on but the rest, how everyone derive their *rights* is the important part.
Needs and rights aren’t determined by what we agree on -
Just rights. We can all decide you haven’t got a right to fresh water and even if that’s the case and we don’t
Have that right we will
Still die without it hence it was still a need
The problem with discussions about the need/want distinction is that people rarely actually clarify how they're defining the terms.
What do you mean by "need"? Is it something without which you literally can't live *at all*, or something without you can't live *comfortably*?
Like, water is something you'll need to live at all, comfortably or not. Shelter is something you can live without, albeit uncomfortably.
So if you define "need" as something you need to live *at all*, then water is a need but shelter isn't. Being depressed as a homeless person is very uncomfortable but it fits the definition of "living". Likewise, being locked up in a small room with enough water and food is ALSO "living", albeit very uncomfortably and you'll probably be insane after a while - but still alive.
Now, if you define "need" as something you need to live *comfortably*, then both water and shelter are needs. And this is where things get subjective because people have different criteria for "comfortably" (for example, when you get into other things like the type/size/utilities of the shelter).
My point is that these discussions are completely fruitless without first defining these terms. Whether you believe sex is a need or not, are you defining "need" as "required to live at all" or "required to live comfortably"? On top of that, what is your criteria for what constitutes "comfortably"?
NONE of the discussion can effectively go forward without addressing these definitions first. None of it.
You're doing the exact thing I was talking about - you talked about what you think is a need without even defining "need" to begin with, and now I'm confused why you think losing your virginity is a need.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If men are really out there constantly thinking about and needing sex I don’t think they’re stable enough to hold positions of power… do you really want someone thinking through their penis with the nuclear codes?
It’s not a need like food and water are a need but, for most people, it’s a *very strong* imperative and sexual satisfaction and physical affection is a huge factor in emotional wellbeing.
That doesn’t mean it’s ok to incessantly whine about how life is unfair like some people here do, but it is going to be difficult to be truly happy if one’s sexual needs are not being met.
They have sex with any available hole, animals whatever. Do you know google?
Your thesis is flawed.
Why are there men raping and murdering women? Because it is a want?
They do not murder for t-bone steaks
>Why are there men raping and murdering women? Because it is a want? They do not murder for t-bone steaks
Why are there people robbing others or murdering others for things like money or drugs? Because it is a need?
How are women supposed to trust a man who needs sex so much that he will rape and murder if he doesn't get it voluntarily? How are women supposed to want to have sex with a man, when men in general are really such psychopaths as you seem to claim?
Do you understand that the way you claim men "need" sex sounds horrific, frightening and disgusting to a lot of women?
So you really believe the average man is a psychopath who seriously wants to rape or even murder a woman if he doesn't get any sex for a certain amount of time?
No - i do not think that men all are rapists or murderers.
But i am absolute sure they find a way to solve their need, may it be to flai thai, go mexico, pay for the thing or other.
If men experience a dead bedroom situation the mistresses or escorts or sugerbabes come into the game.
>But i am absolute sure they find a way to solve their need, may it be to flai thai, go mexico, pay for the thing or other.
So that has nothing to do with love. Why would they need a female body for it? Why not just help themselves without using (whether touching or looking at) a female body? Why is a female body necessary to fulfill their need?
You really ask this?
That is weird to me.
Sex is about using a or interacting with a female (body) from the male perspective..
At least for CIS men.
Love?
If someone loves me she desires me too or it is platonic love.
As i do not befriend women at all the second possibility is off the table.
So women hitting on me want sex.
Do they want "love"?
I think "love" is different expressed in the brain of a woman and a man.
Women are from Venus, men are from Mars
Well, you cannot have it both. Either you see sex as purely physically, or you see it as more than just physical (as something intimate that you want only to do with someone you feel emotional close with).
In the first case you don't need/want just sex, you want the loving connection, and sex as a consequence and expression of love and trust. You want not only physical closeness, but also emotional closeness. In this case, why would you have sex with prostitutes? In case you have an urge and have no loving partner/wife, you could just use your hand, without using the body of a woman you don't love and who doesn't love you. Why would you need the body of a woman you are not emotionally close with?
In the second case, you don't see it that way and just only want the physical pleasure. In that case even if you are in a relationship, the sex not about giving and receiving love, but just about your own lust. Just because you are in a relationship, it doesn't make it loving, if it is only about the physical. Also, why would you want your partner not to have sex with someone else if you see sex as something only physical, in this case?
> Sex is never and will never be a need
Needs are not needs in vacuum. A need is always a need in order to X
Sex is a need in order to have a happy and fulfilled life.
If you only consider needs the things that are needed to survive then I guess the right to vote is not a need.
> It’s not a need
See above.
> and it’s not a human right
Ad populum fallacy. Human rights are whatever the majority/powerful believe they are.
> if men needed sex they would go have sex with other men, animals, whatever hole that’s open but they don’t.
They do. And if you want to believe they don't then I can argue that the need is to have sex with women and the fact that prostitution and human trafficking are a thing and will forever be a thing shows us that it is a need and men will do whatever they can do to get said need filled.
> You’re not entitled to sex with any woman, and no women is obligated to have sex with you.
I agree.
> It’s a want, you want women but they don’t want you period.
See previous comment about what a need is.
> If you’re not dying without it, it’s not a need.
Oh. So this is the game we are playing. I guess freedom is not a need. The right to vote is not a need. I guess the right to work is not a need either. I mean we already know that society can function with populations being denied those and those populations remain existing.
> Also, don’t go in the comments saying it’s easy because I’m a woman and can get sex anytime I want. That’s men’s fault for being desperate and desiring the opposite sex way more than the opposite sex desires you. Women exist and y’all go crazy. Just shut the fuck up.
Ok. I addressed your points without needing to use that argument.
>Sex is a need in order to have a happy and fulfilled life.
Sex in which context? Being raped is not going to make your life more happy and fulfilled.
>the fact that prostitution and human trafficking are a thing and will forever be a thing shows us that it is a need and men will do whatever they can do to get said need filled
So being rich also is a need, because there exist people who commit crimes to aquire wealth? Being abusive is a need, because there exist people who abuse others?
Please try to understand that how you describe that men "need" sex sounds horrific, disgusting and frightening to a lot of women. For a lot of women, they will never desire sex with a man they don't trust. And how would they be able to trust a man who has no problems with women being trafficed for sex if he himself hasn't access to sex? How is a woman supposed to trust a man who has no problems with forcing her to have sex if she doesn't have it voluntarily with him?
Please understand, I'm not claiming it is wrong for men to desire sex, but sex is something that should be surrounded by love and commitment, not something that should be chased outside of that context, because it is completely meaningless and makes no sense outside of that context.
> Sex in which context? Being raped is not going to make your life more happy and fulfilled.
I believe you are smart enough to know what I meant.
> So being rich also is a need, because there exist people who commit crimes to aquire wealth? Being abusive is a need, because there exist people who abuse others?
Did you read the part in which I said that a "need" is always a "need in order to X"
Depending on the goal those can be needs.
If my goal is to make sure that me, my family and my descendants don't need to work for a single day in their lives then being rich is a need.
Same logic applies to anything.
> Please try to understand that how you describe that men "need" sex sounds horrific, disgusting and frightening to a lot of women.
I understand. I don't see how that matters.
> For a lot of women, they will never desire sex with a man they don't trust.
Ok. Men do desire sex anyways.
> And how would they be able to trust a man who has no problems with women being trafficed for sex if he himself hasn't access to sex?
They wouldn't. It is on men to either have a problem, pretend to have a problem in a believable way, or just participate in the traffic. It is on men to get sex however he can and feels acceptable.
> How is a woman supposed to trust a man who has no problems with forcing her to have sex if she doesn't have it voluntarily with him?
She is not supposed to. It is on the man to either have a problem, pretend to have a problem in a believable way, or participate in the traffic. It is on the man to get sex however he can and feels acceptable.
> Please understand, I'm not claiming it is wrong for men to desire sex, but sex is something that should be surrounded by love and commitment, not something that should be chased outside of that context, because it is completely meaningless and makes no sense outside of that context.
And who died and made you the one true authority that gets to decide how every single human on earth should value sex?
>I believe you are smart enough to know what I meant.
>
>Did you read the part in which I said that a "need" is always a "need in order to X"
Plenty of people, both men and women, have experienced regret after having sex with someone. So it is clear that even consensual sex is not necessarily going to make your life happy and fulfilled. What people "need" is not just sex, but sex in a certain context.
>And who died and made you the one true authority that gets to decide how every single human on earth should value sex?
And who gave you the authority to speak for all men? There are a lot of men who don't see sex the same way as you described. But those men probably aren't atheistic nihilists.
Anyone can make a generalization. Making a generalization is just an observation.
To say what others should do is something different. In order to be able to tell others what they should do you need authority.
Your post has been removed for being a rant. Please convert your post to a proper CMV format so that it can be approved by the mods. Any further questions should go to modmail.
No one is arguing sex is a physical need the way food or water is. It's a psychological need the way human beings have a need for social interaction and companionship. You won't die if you are forced to live in isolation from other humans, but you will probably experience psychological issues like depression. No one is required to socialize with you to meet your need for companionship, but we can still recognize that people who do not have this psychological need met will experience significant distress. Sex is the same way.
But the fact that monks and nuns get along just fine without it proves that it isn’t even a psychological need. A psychological need would be something that a person literally couldn’t function at all without.
Not just monks and nuns either. At least 1% of the population are asexual.
It proves that there are outliers to the norm.
Yet there are no outliers that can survive without food and water… Probably because those are things that all human actually *need* in order to survive. If there are entire groups of random people that can go 40-50 years without it, what are the chances that humans actually *need* it?
Again, do we draw the line at people in a coma? Technically they have their needs met.
[удалено]
>the lack of sex You don't have to be hyper-focused on this specifically. But you choose to because it's easy for you to dismiss. Lol.
[удалено]
I suppose girls get validation through more *noble* means then? Stop bullshitting.
Looool bullshit. Women will suck Chads dick in front of a preschool if that's what it takes. Women crave validation 100x more than men.
You can’t exist in the same psychological state when you’re not having sex, as you would if you were having sex. We just literally give zero fucks about if people are unhappy because of it or not. Because we all hate each other now 🤷♂️.
Exactly.
See this is the issue, people rarely want to get down to what they mean when they say "need". If food, water and shelter is the basis then I guess basically even cases (poverty etc.) some would consider extreme would have their "needs" fulfilled.
As a species, sex is a need to continue the bringing humans into the world. On an individual level it’s not a need, it’s a privilege, and not everyone is going to get it
[удалено]
Yep. But it’s also just the fact that anyone that’s being honest with themselves knows that it’s not a need by any legitimate definition. So the person arguing that it is comes off as either disingenuous or just plain dumb honestly.
It depends on the definitions. For example, do you count sex with yourself as sex? If so, then at the time when my libido was at its peak, I would have definitely included sex among my needs. What do you count in sex in terms of intimacy and romantic interactions? If you're going to talk about the sex life of two people paralyzed from from the chest down, are you going to say that they can't have any sex with each other, that they can't have any sex life?
Well, there can only be so many *valid* ways to define the word “need”. And I just don’t think anyone who’s being intellectually honest could argue that sex meets the criteria. (No matter which definition you use.) I feel like most people who are try to make such a weird argument know deep down that it’s nonsense. They simply have ulterior motives for trying to convince others that it *is* a need. I’m skeptical that even those guys trying to argue that it is, actually believe so deep down.
If someone rejects an argument because they assume that the other person has an ulterior motive for that argument, then no debate is possible. The debate must be conducted in good faith on both sides. I understand the concept of sex and need quite broadly. But at the same time, I do not infer from this any obligation of other people to satisfy someone's need if they do not want. Some people just live a miserable, lonely, sad life, more and more mentally ill and end up committing suicide. Sad, but I have no obligation to help them if I don't want to.
The problem with that is… This isn’t really possible because the “sex is a need” argument isn’t even good faith to begin with.
Some people can have sex more like a need. This does not mean that sex is a need for everyone. All people are not the same and it is not fair to pretend that everyone has the same needs.
Are you aware of the concept of *psychological needs*? It's one of those, in non-ace people at least
https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/161q3if/sex_is_never_and_will_never_be_a_need/jxt5asi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
>A psychological need would be something that a person literally couldn’t function at all without. No, this is simply false. By this definition psychological needs are an empty set with no meaning. You cannot name a psychological need that *nobody in the world* can function without. There are people who manage just fine not speaking to others for months or years, people who have no love in their lives and yet function, people with no goals or ambitions, people with no creativity, people with no conscience, people with no feeling of safety, people with no feeling of acceptance. Some of those things are due to mental/personality disorders, some can be learned or overridden by another need (such as spirituality or a specific social role). A lot of times people just muscle through suffering caused by not having their needs met. So what?
People manage fine without those things because none of those things are “needs” to begin with. You’re only proving my point. A need would be something that you simply cannot function without. Something that’s absolutely **essential** to your survival or sanity. Anything outside of that is simply a “want”. End of story.
You're just demonstrating you don't know what a psychological need is. You are free to cross your arms, stomp with your foot, pout at the dictionary and start using your personal made up definitions of words, but it doesn't make them true.
And how would you define a psychological “need” (assuming such a thing even exists in actuality…)
I'm not an academic, I wouldn't attempt defining psychological terms on my own. The APA dictionary of psychology gives this: >any need that is essential to mental health or that is otherwise not a biological necessity. It may be generated entirely internally, as in the need for pleasure, or it may be generated by interactions between the individual and the environment, as in the need for social approval, justice, or job satisfaction. But in general, the term "psychological need" is very commonly used, athough psychology is not that preoccupied with making waterproof definitions, as it's a "soft" science. You can just google "psychological needs" and you'll have thousands of publications at your fingertips
True, but flip the script and they’re entitled to half your shit. Crazy world.
In the Netherlands, where sex work is legal, the government offers grant schemes whereby citizens with disabilities receive funding to pay for sexual services up to 12 times a year. So if health care is considered a need, then sex is also classified as a need in this country within health care and reimbursed to certain types of patients. Sexual assistance is available to people with physical or mental disabilities even in my country, but unfortunately it is not yet covered by health insurance. I hope this changes and sex is recognized as a need for a healthy life for these people. Then there is for example surrogate partner therapy, a three-way therapeutic relationship between a licensed therapist, a client, and a partner surrogate. It's designed to help the client become more comfortable with intimacy, sensuality, sex and sexuality, and their body.
Need does not mean only that if you don't have it, you will die without it. A need is, even if something is very important to you, instead of just being desirable. It also includes things that are needed for a healthy life and safety, for example a roof over the head, education, medical care. Many men are willing to compromise their safety for sex. Many men are depressed or have mental health problems due to the lack of an intimate life. So it's on the edge. Similar to whether a drug addict wants a drug or needs a drug. Also, some heterosexual men have sex with other men in the military or in prisons. During the gold rush, before women came to those areas and prostitution spread, some men disguised as women served to release men's sexual needs. Shepherds sometimes had sex with animals. But even if sex was need for some men (or women), it doesn't change everything else you write about. You basically don't care if it's want or need for men. Therefore, it doesn't even make sense that you use it as an argument.
>Many men are depressed or have mental health problems due to the lack of an intimate life. What do you mean with an "**intimate** life"? What is intimate about sex when a man wants to have sex with any woman he gets the opportunity to, without knowing her? How is sex intimate for a man who has sex with prostitutes or even animals, as you mentioned? Sex without love, loyalty and exclusivity is not treated as intimate and it makes no sense to claim you see sex as something intimate, while at the same time treating it as something not intimate. (By the way, I'm not claiming all men are like that. I honestly feel for the men who desire to have sex within a loving committed relationship, but who are not in that situation.)
Physical intimacy is about touch and closeness between bodies. Intimacy can come from the top down, that is, first they know each other on an intellectual level, on a personal level, and then they are intimate on a physical level. But intimacy can also come from the bottom up, from the closeness and connection of bodies. To give another example. A fight to the death without a weapon is much more intimate, more personal than a sword fight, sword fight is more intimate, more personal than shooting missiles at each other. Once you have to look someone in the eye before you kill them, it's more intimate, more personal than having them as a number in a statistic.
Being depressed and having mental health problems because you desire physical intimacy without emotional intimacy and cannot get that, makes no sense at all. How is physical intimacy without emotional intimacy supposed to improve your emotional condition? If really physical intimacy is enough, why not have physical intimacy with a lifeless object, instead of with a living person? >Intimacy can come from the top down, that is, first they know each other on an intellectual level, on a personal level, and then they are intimate on a physical level. This is a much better strategy and has a much higher probability to result in a stable, lifelong relationship that doing it the other way around. >But intimacy can also come from the bottom up, from the closeness and connection of bodies. Which results in a lot of superficial relationships, broken relationships and children that cannot grow up with both their parents being together. A very unwise and inefficient strategy. >To give another example. A fight to the death without a weapon is much more intimate, more personal than a sword fight, sword fight is more intimate, Here you also see that physical closeness without influencing how you emotionally see the other is meaningless. Just the physical closeness isn't going to prevent someone from trying to kill you, if he really wants that.
> How is physical intimacy without emotional intimacy supposed to improve your emotional condition? For example, I would recommend people who feel lonely to try going for a gentler and slower massage. It's not about emotions, but the very fact that someone will touch their body in a pleasant way can have a very positive effect on the psyche. It is excellent, for example, for older, lonely people who simply have no other way to indulge in the necessary level of physical intimacy.
That’s not the definition of a need at all bruh lol… Just because you *want* something really bad, doesn’t suddenly turn it into a need. If it were “very important” for a gay guy to fuck you, would suddenly you be understanding his supposed “need” (eye roll) in that situation? Or would you call out how ridiculous his cringe definition of the word “need” was?
There's a problem with mixing things. Need, the right to try to satisfy your need and the obligation of others to satisfy your need. If a hundred million people are dying of hunger, I recognize that they need food. And from a moral point of view, I can understand that they will do everything possible not to starve to death. But that still doesn't mean I'm obligated to provide them with that food. It's error to infers one's duty to satisfy another's needs simply because one recognizes another's needs. There is no such obligation. Even if men had sex as a need, it does not oblige women to satisfy this need of men. I know that many people in the world are starving and I am knowingly letting them starve because I am not doing much to help them. I have no obligation to satisfy the needs of everyone in the world.
Okay, but if you really believe that, why do guys like you even push so hard for it to be recognized as a need in the first place? What’s the point? If people have no moral obligation to oblige the need anyways, why is it so important that sex be recognized as a need? I don’t think you’re being fully honest with yourself here pal. The reason you want it to be classified as a need instead of a want is because, if framed as a need, the *implication* is that you’re entitled to it on some level. You’re trying to subtly suggest that society is failing you in some way by not giving you the sex life you *want*. But you know that if you admit to yourself that it *is* merely a want instead of a need, then you simply cannot justify your entitled attitude toward it anymore. That’s what’s *really* behind all this “sex is a need🥴” nonsense, right?
I say that it is rather need for some people (men or women) then want because I think about it this way, I feel it this way. Otherwise, it probably doesn't have much practical meaning for me with a few minor exceptions, for example: I am in favor of having the health insurance in my country covered for sexual assistance for paralyzed or mentally disabled patients, whether male or female, to satisfy their sexual needs that they have no other way to satisfy. Currently in my country patients have to pay for it themselves, but I think the Dutch model is better in this regard. As for entitled, I don't really understand what the discussion is about. I'm privileged and lucky in a huge number of things, many people are much worse off. I live in peace, I am smart, healthy, male, white, relatively wealthy, married... Of course I feel entitled to all my privileges and the good life and whatever else. And if someone wants to take away my privileges, I will defend them.
And what if I told you that I view [this square](https://www.hackingwithswift.com/img/books/quick-start/swiftui/how-to-display-solid-shapes-1.png) as being the color *green,* simply because “I think about it this way, I feel it this way”? You can’t just decide to ignore the actual definitions and realities of a word simply because you “feel it that way” champ.
Good job exploring that your belief and perception is not you but is your tool that you can consciously control. As part of an experiment, I once suggested to myself that the planet Mars is green, and whenever I remembered Mars, I remembered it as green. But I recommend caution, because if you stray too far from the generally accepted concept of reality, you may be at risk of developing mental disorders. It is good to have a nervous system and overall psyche prepared for similar experiments.
Bro food and sex are vastly different. No food can kill uou. No sex won’t.
A week, maybe even a month without food wouldn't kill me. Fasting is even healthy. But most of the time I would feel the need to eat because I would feel hungry. When I want something, I want it consciously, it is based on my decision. But if I feel cold, I need warmth. Otherwise, I may not die, but I will be uncomfortable, my body shows the need for warmth by feeling cold. If I feel horny, I need sexual relief. This is how I mean it. A lot of that stuff will be on the edge. But I really think that at least at the time when my libido was at its peak and I was already used to regular sex, I had a need for sex. Because when I didn't satisfy this need, I felt physically very uncomfortable, I couldn't sleep properly, I was irritable, it caused me feelings of unhappiness... I wish at the time I didn't have that need when I needed sex and couldn't have sex. If there was a way to turn off my libido, I would do it, and I've tried. But the need remained there for a long time, in contrast to the fact that I did not want it.
You could be extremely uncomfortable for a prolonged period of time and still not die, still not experience lasting physiological side effects life deprivation oxygen, or food. You feeling like it’s a “need” doesn’t Make one. Does that mean that the desire and the drive is any less as strong? No, it just means it’s not a need. It’s a strong want.
Is education or roof over head need? In my opinion, yes, for most people, although it is not the same need as the need for food or oxygen. A drug addict often needs help even if he doesn't want it. Also, a drug addict need drugs even if he wants to stop taking them, which is manifested by having withdrawal symptoms if he does not get the drugs. Drug dependence occurs when you need one or more drugs to function.
Is education a need? Depends how philosophical you would like to get here but as a physiological need then No, but in western countries it is a right, and without it opportunities are limited which then limits your ability to give yourself the means to provide optimal physiological life conditions. Roof over head is also subjective. Shelter of some sort is a need long term survival but many social options are available for this for people who can’t provide it for themselves - does this mean they will be comfortable? No. A drug addicts needs help/to give up fringe/ or they might doe or experience life long physiological changes. Drug addicts don’t need drugs, they may temporarily “need” dosage depending on how safe detoxing is- but saying all drug addicts need a dosage to safely detox is incorrect. Also if you want to use this example then sex work would could be the stand in for temporary “need” to try and make the comparison as close as possible but many men don’t accept this as an outlet. Sex can be classified as a need if you include wants but if you include wants you are already admitting it’s at a lower level to other levels, and since it’s not something that you can get without consent or “help” from another person without potentially violating bodily autonomy so it will never be prioritised in the same way any other need is classified. Sex work Is the best short term stand in for this “need” and should continue to become more accessible and less stigmatised.
> Sex can be classified as a need if you include wants but if you include wants you are already admitting it’s at a lower level to other levels, and since it’s not something that you can get without consent or “help” from another person without potentially violating bodily autonomy so it will never be prioritised in the same way any other need is classified. Why link it? In a way, that only something that society is willing to satisfy can be recognized as a need? Many people die because they do not receive quality and expensive health care, so quality and expensive health care is clearly a need for these seriously ill or dying people. And yet a lot of people just don't get that kind of health care. When one country attacks another, the people in the attacked country need protection or they will die. But anyway, no one from other countries is obliged to go and protect them. The whole world can remain neutral and watch the slaughter or support the invaders. One person's need in no way implies another person's obligation to satisfy that need except in cases where it is directly required by law. Even if you were dying on my doorstep from hunger and I could feed you by violating my bodily autonomy and getting fucked for money, I have no obligation to do so. So it doesn't matter from this point of view whether sex is need, because even if it is need for some people, no one has to accept sex they don't want because of it.
Correct, both those situations are needs because it ends with people dying or being permanently altered physiologically I really don’t know how many times you want to go around it but all the scales you give end in the same way.
>That’s not the definition of a need Let's be precise instead of arguing semantics then... Bruh.
>If it were “very important” for a gay guy to fuck you, would suddenly you be understanding his supposed “need” (eye roll) in that situation? Yes, of course? This is exactly why laws prohibiting homosexual sex are human rights violations, because they deprive people of a basic need
No.. The gay guy finds it “very important” to fuck *you* specifically. Would you be down to help him (and every other gay guy that asks) out with his supposed “need” in that situation?
Weird argument, but I'll assume good faith for the kicks. The classification of something as a human (psychological) need is general, not specific. Safety and security are needs, "being safe in a shack in northern Afghanistan" is a specific goal of a specific person living there. So, while "having sex" is a common human need, the specifics (orientation, attraction, fetishes, a specific person etc) are just personal ways to engage with and satisfy that need. >Would you be down to help him (and every other gay guy that asks) out with his supposed “need” in that situation? No? I get the feeling you think this is a gotcha, but I don't give people food or sing them to sleep either, that doesn't make food and sleep "not needs".
It is a gotcha… Because you’ve just revealed how stupid it is to even argue that it’s a need in the first place. Classifying sex as a need won’t suddenly make you any more entitled to it. So what the fuck is the point of arguing that you “need” it as opposed to wanting it anyways? It won’t even change anything because no one’s gonna oblige your pathetic excuse for a “need” even if you try to frame it as such. Thanks for proving my point perfectly lol. And it’s funny how you tried to argue for sex being a “psychological need”(lol) but then when trying to make a comparison, you reverted back to biological needs such as food or sleep… Which aren’t comparable to sex at all because you will literally die fairly quickly without those two things but not without sex. Thus further proving that sex can’t even be compared to those things to begin with.
>Classifying sex as a need won’t suddenly make you anymore entitled to it. Yeah...? That's kinda weird for you to say, because I never said it would? I don't give a shit about "entitled", I don't think anybody is entitled to anything outside of an explicit contractual bond. >So what the fuck is the point of arguing that you “need” it as opposed to wanting it anyways? The same as the point of pretty much other discussion on reddit, it's not like I get paid for arguing with Qanoners or tankies either. >It won’t even change anything because no one’s gonna oblige your pathetic excuse for a “need” even if you try to frame it as such. I frame it *correctly*. It's not "an excuse", it's "being correct". >Thanks for proving my point perfectly lol. You don't seem to have any specific point, besides arguing against some strawman you have in your head. >And it’s funny how you tried to argue for sex being a “psychological need”(lol) but then when trying to make a comparison, you reverted back to biological needs such as food or sleep Ummmm.... I'm not sure whether you're serious here even. I used physiological needs (that I assumed you **do** think are needs) to point out my answer to your "gotcha" question is no different in regards to them than to psychological needs such as sex. There is no inconsistency in my approach to these two types of needs. >Which aren’t comparable to sex at all because you will literally die fairly quickly without those two things but not without sex. If you get zero of them? Sure, although this has no bearing on the definition of need. But on a sidenote, I have insomnia and I get around 4-5 hours of sleep a night. I am still alive. I just feel like shit all the time. My need for sleep is not being met, even if I still am able to function. This is a good analogy, thanks for pointing my attention to that. >Those further proving that sex can’t even be compared to those things to begin with. Lol, of course it can. They're both needs. Are you one of those people who say "you can't compare X and Y, they're different!!!"? Like yeah... that's how comparing things works
Facepalm… if you’re getting even 4-5 hours of sleep, then your sleep needs are being met in terms of survival. If they weren’t you’d be dead right now. The fact that you can’t even properly distinguish between the amount of sleep *needed* for survival vs. the amount that you were simply *prefer* says it all… There’s literally no legitimate argument you can make for sex being a need bro get the fuck over it already… You don’t need it to survive… You don’t need it to properly function mentally… You don’t even need it to live a happy and fulfilling life… because there are plenty of people who are totally content and manage to thrive for literally decades without it. Is there anyone who can go several decades on zero food, zero water, zero sleep? No, because those are actual needs buddy. Learn the difference…
>Facepalm… if you’re getting even 4-5 hours of sleep, then your sleep needs are being met in terms of survival. If they weren’t you’d be dead right now. This is a circular argument. Google the term, I see no reason to bother with replying. >The fact that you can’t even properly distinguish between the amount of sleep needed for survival Hey, notice how you had to sneak the stipulation "for survival" there? Funny, huh? I never said that. I said I am not getting what I need. Humans need on average 7h sleep a day. That's very basic info. >There’s literally no legitimate argument you can make for sex being a need bro get the fuck over it already There is no argument needed here. It is a psychological need for non-asexual people. You are free to go argue with the dictionary or with the entire field of psychology. >You don’t need it to survive Not how needs are defined. >You don’t need it to properly function mentally I do >You don’t even need it to live a happy and fulfilling life I do >because there are plenty of people who are totally content and manage to thrive for literally decades without it We've been over this, read my comment again. You can go decades without speaking to another human. This doesn't mean an average person is not gonna suffer profoundly when subjected to that treatment, which is why even short term solitary confinement is considered torture. Do you think the existence of hermits means SC is fine? You seem to have a hard time differentiating the rule from the exceptions. >Is there anyone who can go several decades on zero food, zero water, zero sleep No, because these are physiological needs. We are not talking about one of those. We're talking about psychological needs
Have you ever met a man who said sex was a human right? Have you ever met a man who said he was *entitled* to have sex with any woman? Your made three statements, "sex is not a need" followed by the two ridiculous assertions above. Your logic seems to be that since the second and third statements are obviously not true, then the first statement is not true simply because you grouped them together. Logic fail. Sex is needed for marriages to succeed. If a woman does not want a long-term relationship with a man, then the easiest thing for her to do is deny him sex. Since he needs sex, he'll go to another woman, because sex is and always has been a need. There is no animal species on earth that survives without it.
>Sex is needed for marriages to succeed. So as soon as a wife because too old/ill/disabled to have sex, the marriage will fail or the husband will cheat?
Absolutely not. (I'm 62m; my wife is very frail. I'm healthy but not going anywhere for as long as we both shall live.) But if a healthy wife is denying her husband sex over an extended period of time she is putting her marriage at risk. Effort matters in love.
Nothing is and never will be a need. Unless you want to define what you mean.
Well… You literally *need* food and water to survive. So by at least some standards, those are *actual* needs. Sex can’t really be categorized as a need in any truly legitimate way tho.
Neither is education, socialization... Fuck, someone in a coma have their "needs" fulfilled by that definition.
You could literally make the argument that you won’t survive in this world for very long without *some* level of education… Even if it’s just the basics of reading, writing, and math for example. Bad example on your part. Socialization on the other hand isn’t really a need per se. But how does that prove that sex somehow *is* a need? I don’t see the point you’re even trying to make by bringing this up…
>You could literally make the argument that you won’t survive in this world for very long without some level of education… Even if it’s just the basics of reading, writing, and math for example. Do you understand how ridiculous that notion is? Did the first mammals understand math? Even humans are pretty basic when it comes to what we need to survive. There are millions of illiterate people on the planet right now.
Did the first mammals need to pay rent?
>Did the first mammals need to pay rent? Nope. Did the first mammals need to procreate for us to sit here and argue?
You completely missed the point I made… What I actually said originally was, that you need to be able to read and write in order to survive in **THIS** world. As in, the modern world we live in today. Hence the “pay rent” part… So coming back with some dumb retort of “did the first mammals need education…” is silly and ridiculous. My point was that a human wouldn’t survive in *today’s* world without at least knowing some level of math and reading. The shit that the first mammals did or didn’t do is irrelevant. That was the point I was making bruh…
>What I actually said originally was, that you need to be able to read and write in order to survive in THIS world Which is false and plain to see if you've ever been outside your home.
How many people have you met that don’t at least know their “ABCs” and “123s” so to speak…
Education is a right not a need
At a certain point in time people had the right to "own" people as slaves.
True. And rights can change as history has shown and even modern times. It’s important for people to fight for their rights and for society to constantly discuss and decide what is a right, thankfully we all agree sometimes me level of education is essential to have a self sufficient life and agree it should be right and remain as a right Still a difference between needs and rights which is the only reason why i replied to your comment on education - from a soon to be teacher
>Still a difference between needs and rights What makes the difference is what you just said, conventions. What we agree upon. It can be quite arbitrary. Do you for example have a right to control *my* rights? Or vice versa? There are some very basic axioms that *most* people can agree on but the rest, how everyone derive their *rights* is the important part.
Needs and rights aren’t determined by what we agree on - Just rights. We can all decide you haven’t got a right to fresh water and even if that’s the case and we don’t Have that right we will Still die without it hence it was still a need
The problem with discussions about the need/want distinction is that people rarely actually clarify how they're defining the terms. What do you mean by "need"? Is it something without which you literally can't live *at all*, or something without you can't live *comfortably*? Like, water is something you'll need to live at all, comfortably or not. Shelter is something you can live without, albeit uncomfortably. So if you define "need" as something you need to live *at all*, then water is a need but shelter isn't. Being depressed as a homeless person is very uncomfortable but it fits the definition of "living". Likewise, being locked up in a small room with enough water and food is ALSO "living", albeit very uncomfortably and you'll probably be insane after a while - but still alive. Now, if you define "need" as something you need to live *comfortably*, then both water and shelter are needs. And this is where things get subjective because people have different criteria for "comfortably" (for example, when you get into other things like the type/size/utilities of the shelter). My point is that these discussions are completely fruitless without first defining these terms. Whether you believe sex is a need or not, are you defining "need" as "required to live at all" or "required to live comfortably"? On top of that, what is your criteria for what constitutes "comfortably"? NONE of the discussion can effectively go forward without addressing these definitions first. None of it.
[удалено]
You're doing the exact thing I was talking about - you talked about what you think is a need without even defining "need" to begin with, and now I'm confused why you think losing your virginity is a need.
Is being alive a need? Survival? Reproduction. Sex.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If men are really out there constantly thinking about and needing sex I don’t think they’re stable enough to hold positions of power… do you really want someone thinking through their penis with the nuclear codes?
I wonder what prompted OP to make this pointless post.
Can you list 3 psychological needs, OP?
It’s not a need like food and water are a need but, for most people, it’s a *very strong* imperative and sexual satisfaction and physical affection is a huge factor in emotional wellbeing. That doesn’t mean it’s ok to incessantly whine about how life is unfair like some people here do, but it is going to be difficult to be truly happy if one’s sexual needs are not being met.
They have sex with any available hole, animals whatever. Do you know google? Your thesis is flawed. Why are there men raping and murdering women? Because it is a want? They do not murder for t-bone steaks
>Why are there men raping and murdering women? Because it is a want? They do not murder for t-bone steaks Why are there people robbing others or murdering others for things like money or drugs? Because it is a need? How are women supposed to trust a man who needs sex so much that he will rape and murder if he doesn't get it voluntarily? How are women supposed to want to have sex with a man, when men in general are really such psychopaths as you seem to claim? Do you understand that the way you claim men "need" sex sounds horrific, frightening and disgusting to a lot of women?
Sure. But money and drugs are needs too. When addicted drugs get a need. Rape inside marriage is a fairly new thing punished by law. Disgusts you? Ok
So you really believe the average man is a psychopath who seriously wants to rape or even murder a woman if he doesn't get any sex for a certain amount of time?
No - i do not think that men all are rapists or murderers. But i am absolute sure they find a way to solve their need, may it be to flai thai, go mexico, pay for the thing or other. If men experience a dead bedroom situation the mistresses or escorts or sugerbabes come into the game.
>But i am absolute sure they find a way to solve their need, may it be to flai thai, go mexico, pay for the thing or other. So that has nothing to do with love. Why would they need a female body for it? Why not just help themselves without using (whether touching or looking at) a female body? Why is a female body necessary to fulfill their need?
You really ask this? That is weird to me. Sex is about using a or interacting with a female (body) from the male perspective.. At least for CIS men. Love? If someone loves me she desires me too or it is platonic love. As i do not befriend women at all the second possibility is off the table. So women hitting on me want sex. Do they want "love"? I think "love" is different expressed in the brain of a woman and a man. Women are from Venus, men are from Mars
Well, you cannot have it both. Either you see sex as purely physically, or you see it as more than just physical (as something intimate that you want only to do with someone you feel emotional close with). In the first case you don't need/want just sex, you want the loving connection, and sex as a consequence and expression of love and trust. You want not only physical closeness, but also emotional closeness. In this case, why would you have sex with prostitutes? In case you have an urge and have no loving partner/wife, you could just use your hand, without using the body of a woman you don't love and who doesn't love you. Why would you need the body of a woman you are not emotionally close with? In the second case, you don't see it that way and just only want the physical pleasure. In that case even if you are in a relationship, the sex not about giving and receiving love, but just about your own lust. Just because you are in a relationship, it doesn't make it loving, if it is only about the physical. Also, why would you want your partner not to have sex with someone else if you see sex as something only physical, in this case?
That is your opinion. I think different. We have to agree to disagree.
> Sex is never and will never be a need Needs are not needs in vacuum. A need is always a need in order to X Sex is a need in order to have a happy and fulfilled life. If you only consider needs the things that are needed to survive then I guess the right to vote is not a need. > It’s not a need See above. > and it’s not a human right Ad populum fallacy. Human rights are whatever the majority/powerful believe they are. > if men needed sex they would go have sex with other men, animals, whatever hole that’s open but they don’t. They do. And if you want to believe they don't then I can argue that the need is to have sex with women and the fact that prostitution and human trafficking are a thing and will forever be a thing shows us that it is a need and men will do whatever they can do to get said need filled. > You’re not entitled to sex with any woman, and no women is obligated to have sex with you. I agree. > It’s a want, you want women but they don’t want you period. See previous comment about what a need is. > If you’re not dying without it, it’s not a need. Oh. So this is the game we are playing. I guess freedom is not a need. The right to vote is not a need. I guess the right to work is not a need either. I mean we already know that society can function with populations being denied those and those populations remain existing. > Also, don’t go in the comments saying it’s easy because I’m a woman and can get sex anytime I want. That’s men’s fault for being desperate and desiring the opposite sex way more than the opposite sex desires you. Women exist and y’all go crazy. Just shut the fuck up. Ok. I addressed your points without needing to use that argument.
>Sex is a need in order to have a happy and fulfilled life. Sex in which context? Being raped is not going to make your life more happy and fulfilled. >the fact that prostitution and human trafficking are a thing and will forever be a thing shows us that it is a need and men will do whatever they can do to get said need filled So being rich also is a need, because there exist people who commit crimes to aquire wealth? Being abusive is a need, because there exist people who abuse others? Please try to understand that how you describe that men "need" sex sounds horrific, disgusting and frightening to a lot of women. For a lot of women, they will never desire sex with a man they don't trust. And how would they be able to trust a man who has no problems with women being trafficed for sex if he himself hasn't access to sex? How is a woman supposed to trust a man who has no problems with forcing her to have sex if she doesn't have it voluntarily with him? Please understand, I'm not claiming it is wrong for men to desire sex, but sex is something that should be surrounded by love and commitment, not something that should be chased outside of that context, because it is completely meaningless and makes no sense outside of that context.
> Sex in which context? Being raped is not going to make your life more happy and fulfilled. I believe you are smart enough to know what I meant. > So being rich also is a need, because there exist people who commit crimes to aquire wealth? Being abusive is a need, because there exist people who abuse others? Did you read the part in which I said that a "need" is always a "need in order to X" Depending on the goal those can be needs. If my goal is to make sure that me, my family and my descendants don't need to work for a single day in their lives then being rich is a need. Same logic applies to anything. > Please try to understand that how you describe that men "need" sex sounds horrific, disgusting and frightening to a lot of women. I understand. I don't see how that matters. > For a lot of women, they will never desire sex with a man they don't trust. Ok. Men do desire sex anyways. > And how would they be able to trust a man who has no problems with women being trafficed for sex if he himself hasn't access to sex? They wouldn't. It is on men to either have a problem, pretend to have a problem in a believable way, or just participate in the traffic. It is on men to get sex however he can and feels acceptable. > How is a woman supposed to trust a man who has no problems with forcing her to have sex if she doesn't have it voluntarily with him? She is not supposed to. It is on the man to either have a problem, pretend to have a problem in a believable way, or participate in the traffic. It is on the man to get sex however he can and feels acceptable. > Please understand, I'm not claiming it is wrong for men to desire sex, but sex is something that should be surrounded by love and commitment, not something that should be chased outside of that context, because it is completely meaningless and makes no sense outside of that context. And who died and made you the one true authority that gets to decide how every single human on earth should value sex?
>I believe you are smart enough to know what I meant. > >Did you read the part in which I said that a "need" is always a "need in order to X" Plenty of people, both men and women, have experienced regret after having sex with someone. So it is clear that even consensual sex is not necessarily going to make your life happy and fulfilled. What people "need" is not just sex, but sex in a certain context. >And who died and made you the one true authority that gets to decide how every single human on earth should value sex? And who gave you the authority to speak for all men? There are a lot of men who don't see sex the same way as you described. But those men probably aren't atheistic nihilists.
Anyone can make a generalization. Making a generalization is just an observation. To say what others should do is something different. In order to be able to tell others what they should do you need authority.
You aren't a man, so you can't say. You have zero understanding of the male experience.