Is sex a need?

nigel_wilson

And if so how do you reconcile the issue of "entitlement" that inveitably comes when discussing it with frustrated virgin men?

Sexual reproduction can only be considered an essential need for a society. On an individual level, sex itself might be an 'emotional need' but even that comes into question. A fractional minority of people in society either consider themselves asexual (never having experienced sexual attraction) or can restrain their desires healthily.

Now for most people masturbation isn't enough; sex will need to be in their life. Many psychologists rightly or wrongly preach the message that sex is normal and healthy and people should have sex when they can, even young teens.

If we go on this premise, then how do we respond to those men who claim that it's hypocritical to preach this while at the same time ban prostitution and not make any other legal or social accommodations for men who can't find sexual relationships?

Food is a need and although people who aren't may not get as much nutrition or luxury as wealthier people, they are still given many cheap choices that satisfy them. Same for housing. Council flats may not be in the place you want but at the least, society makes some accommodation (practically speaking).

Where's the accommodation for people who struggle with sex? Didn't a law criminalizing prostitution come in early this year? Why does most of Western society seem backwards on this?

magentis

I'm eating my breakfast Kate.

Are Am Eye

Kick em in the face.

corner of hells

nigel_wilson wrote: »

And if so how do you reconcile the issue of "entitlement" that inveitably comes when discussing it with frustrated virgin men?

Sexual reproduction can only be considered an essential need for a society. On an individual level, sex itself might be an 'emotional need' but even that comes into question. A fractional minority of people in society either consider themselves asexual (never having experienced sexual attraction) or can restrain their desires healthily.

Now for most people masturbation isn't enough; sex will need to be in their life. Many psychologists rightly or wrongly preach the message that sex is normal and healthy and people should have sex when they can, even young teens.

If we go on this premise, then how do we respond to those men who claim that it's hypocritical to preach this while at the same time ban prostitution and not make any other legal or social accommodations for men who can't find sexual relationships?

Food is a need and although people who aren't may not get as much nutrition or luxury as wealthier people, they are still given many cheap choices that satisfy them. Same for housing. Council flats may not be in the place you want but at the least, society makes some accommodation (practically speaking).

Where's the accommodation for people who struggle with sex? Didn't a law criminalizing prostitution come in early this year? Why does most of Western society seem backwards on this?

How did you manage to get sex and a comment about social housing in one post ?

Widdershins

Not strictly a need in the requirements-for-survival sense so the government's not obliged to allow for it any more than it is obliged to allow for other forms of entertainment and stimulation.

IMO sex with a prostitute wouldn't fulfill the need because there's no mutual desire there. No chemistry, no bonding and no fun. Maybe it is better than nothing for people who haven't had much luck with it normally.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

branie2

It's natural

LadyMacBeth_

You might have sexual needs but that doesn't mean you have the right to have sex. For those virgin men, buy a fleshlight.

I would definitely suffer if I never had sex again but I wouldn't feel the need to demand sex from people who didn't want to have sex with me if that were the case either.

nigel_wilson

LadyMacBeth_ wrote: »

You might have sexual needs but that doesn't mean you have the right to have sex. For those virgin men, buy a fleshlight.

I would definitely suffer if I never had sex again but I wouldn't feel the need to demand sex from people who didn't want to have sex with me if that were the case either.

I wonder if GP's could provide men who wanted to reduce their sex drive the means to through chemical castration.

Sex is a biological urge, not an entitlement.

Everyone wants sex, not everyone gets sex. It was always thus, the only difference is that in our modern and highly sexualized society with windows open on everyone elses apparently perfect lives via facebook et al, is that those who go without feel resentful and entitled in equal measure, believing they're the only ones missing out. You're not entitled to sex. It's not required for individual survival, unlike food, shelter and warmth.

One eyed Jack

nigel_wilson wrote: »

And if so how do you reconcile the issue of "entitlement" that inveitably comes when discussing it with frustrated virgin men?

Discussing frustrated virgin men's sense of entitlement to sex with them? If their sense of entitlement is that deep, there's no point in discussing anything with them.

Sexual reproduction can only be considered an essential need for a society. On an individual level, sex itself might be an 'emotional need' but even that comes into question. A fractional minority of people in society either consider themselves asexual (never having experienced sexual attraction) or can restrain their desires healthily.

While sex and reproduction are related, only reproduction is necessary for the survival of the species, sex isn't. Therefore sex is an individual desire and not in any way shape or form necessary for ones continuing survival.

Now for most people masturbation isn't enough; sex will need to be in their life. Many psychologists rightly or wrongly preach the message that sex is normal and healthy and people should have sex when they can, even young teens.

Sounds more like something an ideological fcukwit would say than a psychologist, though I grant you the two aren't mutually exclusive :pac:

If we go on this premise, then how do we respond to those men who claim that it's hypocritical to preach this while at the same time ban prostitution and not make any other legal or social accommodations for men who can't find sexual relationships?

I've already rejected your earlier premise, so I wouldn't bother responding to someone who is clearly advocating a position which society should take, in which it's clear that they would be the only beneficiary. It's obviously hypocritical for them to put the burden of responsibility for their own behaviours and attitudes on other people. There's no such thing as men who can't find sexual relationships, they just don't want to, because they feel they are entitled to sexual relationships. That's generally not how society works.

Food is a need and although people who aren't may not get as much nutrition or luxury as wealthier people, they are still given many cheap choices that satisfy them. Same for housing. Council flats may not be in the place you want but at the least, society makes some accommodation (practically speaking).

I can just about see the relationship you're trying to make there, but in order to accept that, I'd have to accept the fundamental point of your argument that sex is a necessity to sustain ones life. It isn't.

Where's the accommodation for people who struggle with sex? Didn't a law criminalizing prostitution come in early this year? Why does most of Western society seem backwards on this?

There are more than enough people willing to have sex with people, so a lack of sex isn't really the issue. The issue is who these minority of frustrated virgins want to have sex with, and because nobody is entitled to sex, neither are frustrated virgins. Western society is actually progressing in this regard to the point where people are entitled to choose who they don't want to have sex with.

Widdershins

Why does continuation of the human race matter? I don't mean keeping the existing humans alive, I mean why do we talk like we're obligated to ensure there'll always be future generations? Because the last generation would have terrible lives ?

BBDBB

Is sex a need?

It is if you do it right

nozzferrahhtoo

nigel_wilson wrote: »

On an individual level, sex itself might be an 'emotional need' but even that comes into question. A fractional minority of people in society either consider themselves asexual (never having experienced sexual attraction) or can restrain their desires healthily.

Not weighing in on the "is it a need or not" discussion but I would point out that either way THIS would be a red herring argument at best. Assessing a general attribute about humanity by reference to a statistically outlier minority is not going to get you anywhere useful except confirmation bias about where someone themselves might perhaps WANT to get.

Yes asexuals exist, but they are statistically a minority. Worse, what ones do exist can be broken down into subgroups and some of them would be asexual not by choice or desire, but due to hormonal imbalances or issues or other physiological or psychological problems for which their asexuality is merely a symptom.

nigel_wilson wrote: »

If we go on this premise, then how do we respond to those men who claim that it's hypocritical to preach this while at the same time ban prostitution and not make any other legal or social accommodations for men who can't find sexual relationships?

I would respond to them the same way I respond to anyone on that topic. Banning or making illegal the sale of sex between consenting adults is a useless, nonsense, and barely defensible position the support for which I have been shown no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning of any coherence.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's no such thing as men who can't find sexual relationships, they just don't want to, because they feel they are entitled to sexual relationships.

Really, you have interviewed them ALL have you and established that ALL of them failing to find such relationships simply do not "want to"? Where DO you get the time to conduct these en masse social studies?

Or is it more a case that you are simply making things up and generalizing about a complex social issue with a one liner conclusion that simply sits well with yourself?

Or is it possible that there are indeed people who try to enter such relationships and, for whatever reason due to the vagaries of mere statistics, simply do not succeed.

super_furry

This reads like some creepy incel nonsense.

Jim Bob Scratcher

I like big boobies

Wombatman

Not so much a need as a primal drive. One of the four Fs

Fighting, fleeing, feeding and fcuking.

sbsquarepants

corner of hells wrote: »

How did you manage to get sex and a comment about social housing in one post ?

Well, when mickey money night rolls around (it's tomorrow by the way, it's like shooting fish in a barrel;))
where exactly are the yummy mummies supposed to get their "needs" met, behind the wheeley bins out the back of whatever nightclub?

You need social housing, to be social in of course!