Essential human needs

Post Reply New Topic

Right. I was referring to what thomas81 said above that and implying what both of these gentlemen did with their genitals to solve their problems (or at least I often hear from people at different times that Tesla pulled an Origen).

If strict deprivation of something has highly imbalancing results - IMHO it's a need.

without food, water, oxygen, and (in certain climates) shelter from the elements, the chemical processes of life in the human body will cease.

without sex, but with all those other factors covered, the human animal trudges on.

sex is a want, not a need. far too many men seem to make this (seriously problematic) assumption.

no one is entitled to sex (at least not with other people; everyone, however, is entitled to as much sex with themselves as they like).

so shut up and have a wank and stop blaming us women for "not providing the basic needs".

Not at all where I was going.

I'd consider sex and human liberty (physical, intellectual, and spiritual) as being of the same class of need - ie. neither are fundamental for the body to survive.

Masturbation IS a fulfillment of sexual need and sexual need CANNOT trump human liberty (ie. physical autonomy) without the need for individual liberty immediately superseding it.

The reason this topic gets weird, or at least my best guess, is that the feeling is out there that if it gets expressed as a need, all of a sudden the word 'need' would legitimate having it legally mandated because masturbation would be seen as less optimal than intercourse and thus fall short. I don't believe in that kind of statist utopianism to begin with, part of why I suppose considering sex a need isn't a huge burr in my political or philosophical structure, but also if we do have even a shred of Victorian era masturbation-shaming still hanging around we really need to get over it - especially in a time and place where we panic about there being 7 billion people in the world.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 11 May 2014, 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

my post wasn't specifically directed at you; it was for the sake of the many guys i have observed posting in this forum that seem to think that sex is a right they are being denied by selfish women.

Fair. I think part of the tangle is also how we handle the crossover between 'needs' and what we care enough about to classify as 'rights'. Fulfilling one's sexuality in it's myriad options seems to fit well under individual liberty (ie. the right to do so).

I think masturbation comes close to being a need as it is essential for health.

Sex with a partner isn't a need.

Fully agreed.

ditto.

For most people, being deprived of human company has a worse effect on their mental health than being deprived of sex. That's why solitary confinement is commonly used as punishment, but not a chastity belt.

In case you are unaware of the facts, there ARE women on this planet who consider sex a 'need'.
It is NOT just some men who think so.

Note: I'm not saying it IS a need....just saying that some men and women consider it to be.

Fixed. People from the continent of North America can't say or type 'wank' without it sounding or looking preposterously funny. Leave the profanity to the Brits and the Aussies, and stop trying to 'do' the accents that you see in stupid period dramas.

Cheers*

Having read back the thread it seems I'm the only one who's taking inebriants seriously, so I'm going to retract my suggestion as I suspect it may have been a stupid idea.

It would be fair to summarise that sex and company aren't needs or entitlement, but sexual gratification is - at least in the way that sexual gratification can happen without sex and without company. You only need to consider the horrors of (usually Religious) sexual repression throughout the millenia to know that celibacy or needless sexual guilt can warp otherwise benevolent men and women into monsters. Sexual gratification therefore must be a fundamental need.

(it makes sense to me now I've actually thunk about it)

* I wasn't picking on starvingartist in particular, I just thought I'd seize the opportunity to launch a nuke over the Atlantic. The same is true for Brits who think they're cool using American slang. Like 'dude' I suppose, I say that.
Aforementioned poster might be best advised to choose a less eye-catching avatar, so that stupid responses from Pobbles in future might be avoided.

half of my family is english. my mother's parents were both born and raised in london and came to canada just before my mother was born--i spent countless hours with them during the first 18 years of my life. you don't own the lingo--piss off.

edit*--it's the only decent picture i have of myself (i don't have many) and i prefer to have my real face behind the things i say. that's just how i roll, yo. there's some NA slang for you, are you happy now?

Hmmm.

You realise London is a province of France, don't you? There's a phonetical 'tell' if you listen. English say 'France', Londoners say Fraaaaaaaaaaahnce. This also sounds ridiculous, ridiculous enough to have its own spelling.

I invite you to share this with your pansy Londoner relatives, and tell them I said they're all soft!


Edit: are you suggesting that my avatar isn't my real face?

if my cockney granddad were alive today, i'm sure he'd tell you to piss off, too--he'd just do it more cheerfully.

Still hasn't changed very distracting avatar, must be happy with further stupid responses!

Come on FFS, it took me a whole 20 mins to read your post without forgetting what I was doing.

masturbation for men only! for women it is far from essential for health....