# why is sex as a physical need difficult for some people to understand how to fulfill



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i would say that intimacy is actual need (and can be had in a variety of ways). sex is only a "need" when--in some far-flung evolutionary mishap--your physiology actually works against you by creating mental/emotional stress due to a lack of release, decreasing your lifespan overall (and for us "relatively normal" people--almost everyone on the planet--there are other ways to compensate for this "stress"). 

it's a "need" if the person doesn't realize what it is that they're actually after, and they begin to base their life around this very thing--as it's semi-related in a social sense (to intimacy), but that awareness stops before realizing what the actual goal is.

it's a step to a need, not a need in itself.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Era said:


> What you describe is an 'addiction'.


You can sleep in the woods, on the ground, survive on less than 1k cal a day, fast for three, go months without bathing, never read, never speak, engage with no one--all highly believable to be true of the basic human animal and I've never heard of bed addiction, bathing fixation, or a talking fetish. Just about everyone eats more than they need to, has more than is necessary and engages in a host of daily rituals that aren't natural but are considered necessary and common for everyday life, and they're not labeled addicts. So why is sex, a naturally occurring function, considered addiction if one needs it regularly enough to feel healthy?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I would say it is a need like social interaction/friendships/families are needs. Well... I'm not sure how I would rank them but all are part of a healthy mental life. I would even say that some type of religion or cause/purpose are needs in the same way. I mean you can obviously live without purpose, or joy too.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I guess what it really boils down to is how you define _need_.


That would be defined on how well you can listen to your body and how often it communicates that it needs something. For some people this will be daily, for others it'll be in monthly intervals. It's a lot like food; some people need to eat every two hours because their body communicates a need for calories, others go hours, even days without a bite because an appetite isn't present.


----------



## Jwing24 (Aug 2, 2010)

fourtines said:


> Yes I know that some people have emotional issues or are excessively timid or shy, or have pathological self hatred, or really only have boys under eighteen and old men over sixty surrounding them.
> 
> But barring those circumstances, what the fuck is it like to not know how to get sex, as a physical act, not a relationship? I mean if you want food you learn to cook or drive to Carl's Jr.
> 
> ...


This makes sense, I can't say I disagree with you here. I know I'm not ugly, yes that's me on the left. I'm not stupid, I'm not uneducated, poor, or a criminal. I can be interesting. So wtf is my problem? Excessively timid and shy with low self-esteem and it seems periodic periods of feeling down (not going to call it depression, would need to see someone for that diagnosis). In the workplace or at school no one sees the negative side of me, I've learned to have two separate ways. But, it exists most of the time I'm out of those two situations. For me, it's quite simple, really.

I also don't doubt that some people don't have this need you speak of, or some with a very low need for it. At this point, where I'm at, it seems quite alien to me and the older I get (maybe due to hormonal changes and life situation, who knows) the less I feel a need for it.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

android654 said:


> That would be defined on how well you can listen to your body and how often it communicates that it needs something. For some people this will be daily, for others it'll be in monthly intervals. It's a lot like food; some people need to eat every two hours because their body communicates a need for calories, others go hours, even days without a bite because an appetite isn't present.


My body wants lots of things I don't give it. It tells me every other day how much it wants wine, cheese, and bread but those items are at best unnecessary and at worst detrimental to my health. So I don't eat them. 

Same for sex in my case. I want it, I get it and I feel better. OR, I don't get it, some time passes, and I feel better. Just like with the cheese. I will not die from lack of any of the above. I do not need them.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> My body wants lots of things I don't give it. It tells me every other day how much it wants wine, cheese, and bread but those items are at best unnecessary and at worst detrimental to my health. So I don't eat them.
> 
> Same for sex in my case. I want it, I get it and I feel better. OR, I don't get it, some time passes, and I feel better. Just like with the cheese. I will not die from lack of any of the above. I do not need them.


The difference here is that wine and cheese are man-made things, foodstuffs that wouldn't have existed without our involvement; a need for them has no genetic ties to us because they haven't been around long enough to have an influence outside of culture. Sex, on the other hand, has followed us through every iteration of evolution. A need for sex and calories is an apt comparison, sex and chocolate, ice cream, beer, is not.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

android654 said:


> You can sleep in the woods, on the ground, survive on less than 1k cal a day, fast for three, go months without bathing, never read, never speak, engage with no one--all highly believable to be true of the basic human animal and I've never heard of bed addiction, bathing fixation, or a talking fetish. Just about everyone eats more than they need to, has more than is necessary and angages in a host of daily rituals that aren't natural but are considered necessary and common for everyday life, and they're not labeled addicts. So why is sex, a naturally occuring function, considered addiction is one needs it regularly enough to feel healthy?


All of those things can be addictions because they produce feel good hormones like dopamine and oxytocin that people want more of. The reason they are not labeled as addictions is because they are generally not considered to be in any way life threatening or life hindering, like some drugs are, for instance. So yes, they are addictions, but they're not necessarily harmful. Addiction does not equate harmful.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

Daithi said:


> You can live without sex. You can't live without food or water. If *its a need then how are Buddhist monks still alive. I am a 23 year old virgin, and I am still alive.*


And happy as a mother too.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

android654 said:


> The difference here is that wine and cheese are man-made things, foodstuffs that wouldn't have existed without our involvement; a need for them has no genetic ties to us because they haven't been around long enough to have an influence outside of culture. Sex, on the other hand, has followed us through every iteration of evolution. A need for sex and calories is an apt comparison, sex and chocolate, ice cream, beer, is not.


I am not denying sex is a need for the species. Of course we collectively need it (well, sort of). But on an individual level it is a want. 

What about adrenaline junkies? You can't get much more natural and historical than adrenaline. It is a part of us. Yet many would agree that someone who loves adrenaline does not need to go sky diving. He will not die if he doesn't (in fact, he may die if he does). 

I am choosing to define a basic need as something required for survival. If you can go ten years without it and be perfectly alive and healthy then you do not need it.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

I have a history of being somewhat lax when evaluating my standards in a sexual partner and it has lead to some difficult situations.

This needs to change.

Even though I want sex, I don't want to turn it into a necessity or force the issue.

Dangerous things happen when you lower your standards.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

android654 said:


> *Every animal exists with the purpose to survive and reproduce. Sex is a need driven by our brain and our DNA. You can survive without it, but I wouldn't call it living.
> *
> 
> 
> ...


Id like proof that this is our purpose. Purpose implies creation, intelligence, and design.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I am not denying sex is a need for the species. Of course we collectively need it (well, sort of). But on an individual level it is a want.


Now you're pushing it. We as a species do need sex, on the grand scale, looking at humanity as a whole, we don't kinda need it, it's imperative that it takes place.



> What about adrenaline junkies? You can't get much more natural and historical than adrenaline. It is a part of us. Yet many would agree that someone who loves adrenaline does not need to go sky diving. He will not die if he doesn't (in fact, he may die if he does).
> 
> I am choosing to define a basic need as something required for survival. If you can go ten years without it and be perfectly alive and healthy then you do not need it.


If we were living naturally, hadn't evolved onto our current rung, adrenaline would come from existing and we'd get it in regular intervals. Supplementation of this effect is nothing more than a show of how it is necessary to activate hormones from time to time.

I seriously think you're defining things with too much rigidity. Again, you can survive with a 1k calories a day, perhaps less, for the rest of your life, sleep on the floor, live naked, never speak, etc. Yet you engage in these nonessential things all the time--Would you really suggest that any human can be fine without it? Even the most tribal of peoples still engage in "unnecessary" practices that won't kill them, but they are essential for survival. I don't see how sexual health is different simply because it won't kill you.



dvnj22 said:


> Id like proof that this is our purpose. Purpose implies creation, intelligence, and design.


There are five areas of ape behavior that is seen throughout the species: sex, the need to care for our young, grooming and intimacy, violence and confrontation, and communication with our tribe. These are central to our species and we cannot survive as a species without  understanding and engaging in those five areas. I hope I seriously don't have to justify how all of these are needs for us as well.

Primate Behavior


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Sex is not a need, nor is it primarily physical for everyone who has it.

If one selects one's sex partners based on appearances, and if one approaches sex as though it existed purely for one's personal physical fulfillment, then that person is using others as objects rather than connecting with them as individual subjects. If one is planning to treat others as tools to use for one's selfish ends, it is important to make sure they consent to being objectified and used. This works best if the objectification is mutual rather than one-sided. If one is shallow and selfish, it might be a good idea to pick a shallow, selfish partner who understands the situation.

Objectifying others for selfish reasons does not qualify as a legitimate physical need in the same way that eating and drinking are needs. People can survive without sex indefinitely, often without any significant negative effect, and some even prefer celibacy. Framing sex as a physical need alienates such individuals while indirectly leading to sexual coercion and other bad behaviors. 

Deciding who should get to mate with whom based on some arbitrary aesthetic rating system (which is most likely defined in some part by external cultural standards) is completely irrational and pointless. It leads to discrimination and serves no positive purpose.

People are capable of falling in love with each other for reasons that have nothing to do with physical presentation, conformity to social norms, or the desire for sensory pleasure. They can get to know each other and form attractions based on feelings of closeness and compatibility, taking the other person's identity and feelings into account. They can decide together whether they want to reproduce, and regardless of their answer, they can enjoy sex as a positive bonding experience that expresses their connection.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

android654 said:


> Now you're pushing it. We as a species do need sex, on the grand scale, looking at humanity as a whole, we don't kinda need it, it's imperative that it takes place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I asked for proof that it is our purpose. Sex/reproduction is a need for humanity, but not for every human. In fact in most mammals that are social many are celibate. We observe this with birds, wolfs.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

android654 said:


> Now you're pushing it. We as a species do need sex, on the grand scale, looking at humanity as a whole, we don't kinda need it, it's imperative that it takes place.


I only said sort of because we have the technology now that makes sex pretty obsolete. I know that's not how it is, I am just saying that if for some bizarre reason every person on the planet could not or would not have sex we could still procreate (never mind the logistics of it regarding the number of doctors, facilities, etc.) That's all I meant. 



> If we were living naturally, hadn't evolved onto our current rung, adrenaline would come from existing and we'd get it in regular intervals. Supplementation of this effect is nothing more than a show of how it is necessary to activate hormones from time to time.
> 
> I seriously think you're defining things with too much rigidity. Again, you can survive with a 1k calories a day, perhaps less, for the rest of your life, sleep on the floor, live naked, never speak, etc. Yet you engage in these nonessential things all the time--Would you really suggest that any human can be fine without it? Even the most tribal of peoples still engage in "unnecessary" practices that won't kill them, but they are essential for survival. I don't see how sexual health is different simply because it won't kill you.


I am a personal believer in self deprivation, so maybe I am not the best person to speak about this. I do only eat 1000 calories a day, a very strict diet of essential nutrients, however I do not sleep on the floor. I also wear clothing, as I don't fancy being cold or being hauled off to prison. However, if I lived somewhere with a warmer climate and everybody was naked, I probably would be too. Clothes would be unnecessary. I abhor gluttony and honestly think our society has become too entitled and complacent for our own good. 

Sex for reproduction is necessary. Recreational sex is not. Just the same as food for nutrition is necessary, food for satisfaction or indulgence is not. 

I don't care how often other people have sex, and even how much I do is irrelevant. I understand that my want for sex with protection is just that - a want. Me not getting it will not change a thing.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

snail said:


> Sex is not a need, nor is it primarily physical for everyone who has it.
> 
> If you select your sex partners based on appearances, and if you approach sex as though it existed purely for your personal physical fulfillment, then you are using people as objects rather than connecting with them as individual subjects. If you are planning to treat others as tools to use for your selfish ends, it is important to make sure they consent to being objectified and used. This works best if the objectification is mutual rather than one-sided. If you are shallow and selfish, it might be a good idea to pick a shallow, selfish partner who understands the situation.
> 
> ...


The problem here is people are assuming everyone is the same.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

BlackDog said:


> I only said sort of because we have the technology now that makes sex pretty obsolete. I know that's not how it is, I am just saying that if for some bizarre reason every person on the planet could not or would not have sex we could still procreate (never mind the logistics of it regarding the number of doctors, facilities, etc.) That's all I meant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good points. 

Also...

Human sexuality goes beyond and is treated differently then our other wants. Even if we conclude sex as a need it goes beyond that with our obsession with it. For example: does anyone watch on the Internet people eating other foods? Or goes to watch a cheeseburger slowly unwrapped from its packaging?


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

dvnj22 said:


> Human sexuality goes beyond and is treated differently then our other wants. Even if we conclude sex as a need it goes beyond that with our obsession with it. For example: does anyone watch on the Internet people eating other foods? Or goes to watch a cheeseburger slowly unwrapped from its packaging?



Yes we do. It's called advertising and it is one of the most successful industries on the planet.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I only said sort of because we have the technology now that makes sex pretty obsolete. I know that's not how it is, I am just saying that if for some bizarre reason every person on the planet could not or would not have sex we could still procreate (never mind the logistics of it regarding the number of doctors, facilities, etc.) That's all I meant.


But if we're discussing needs based on natural foundations, than invitro and test-tube babies don't apply.



> I am a personal believer in self deprivation, so maybe I am not the best person to speak about this. I do only eat 1000 calories a day, a very strict diet of essential nutrients, however I do not sleep on the floor. I also wear clothing, as I don't fancy being cold or being hauled off to prison. However, if I lived somewhere with a warmer climate and everybody was naked, I probably would be too. Clothes would be unnecessary. I abhor gluttony and honestly think our society has become too entitled and complacent for our own good.
> 
> Sex for reproduction is necessary. Recreational sex is not. Just the same as food for nutrition is necessary, food for satisfaction or indulgence is not.
> 
> I don't care how often other people have sex, and even how much I do is irrelevant. I understand that my want for sex with protection is just that - a want. Me not getting it will not change a thing.


Well those are some extreme positions to take, but I still don't see why a rigid definition is necessary to establish a baseline of health or healthy needs. Even in medicine we learn that no two patients respond to treatments in the exact same way, as certain bodies need to synthesize different proteins to respond to a cure or vaccine. By the same logic, there should be room to establish some understanding that different levels of sexual interaction are needed for individuals, for some it'll be low and others high, but for the entire population some kind of contact is a need.




dvnj22 said:


> I asked for proof that it is our purpose. Sex/reproduction is a need for humanity, but not for every human. In fact in most mammals that are social many are celibate. We observe this with birds, wolfs.


Birds aren't mammals, wolves aren't apes, celibacy among primates is highly rare, outliers in data points of health as observed in the species as a whole. An organism's purpose is protection and replication, that's observed in all organisms, complex and microscopic anything above that is adapted, and anything below that falls outside of normal parameters.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Daithi said:


> You can live without sex. You can't live without food or water. If its a need then how are Buddhist monks still alive. I am a 23 year old virgin, and I am still alive.


What are you even talking about. I am happy for you (though I think you lie, because I remember your first gf and your sexuality thread) and Buddhist monks.

I am not talking about people who DON'T want sex.

But for people who do want sex, so many seem to imagine here that it's a magical thing granted to you by a hot babe if you say some magic words.

How is it escaping these individuals so fundamentally that sex is physical and practical?

If you like hot chicks or hot guys, it would behoove one to think that your first step would be trying to be hot yourself, instead of trying to be manipulative or right. All the game and asshole behavior in the world won't help you if you look like Peter Griffin. I am not saying get plastic surgery, just try your best to look fit and animalistically appealing. As a person with a vagina, I knew that when I was prepubescent. Maybe guys should be taught that too. Like Jesus Tapdancing Christ trim your nose hair and run some laps. Sure Axe body spray is better than B.O.

Secondly, since sex is practical, go somewhere practical to get it. Not someone who you find repulsive, but also not some imaginary unattainable goal.

You wouldn't try to get a sandwich out of a tool box in the garage.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I was attempting to differentiate between recreational and reproductive sex. Even reproductive sex won't be a _need_ for the human species forever. Already people are proving that it's more about the sensation and less about the baby-making.
> 
> That's why we have such a terrible problem in the west with obesity and heart disease. We took a normal craving and love of food - which serves a perfectly useful function, nutrition - and twisted it into something for our own enjoyment. Cheeseburgers, deep fried Mars bars, and potato chips don't exist to sustain us nutritionally. They exist to feed our desire for instant gratification.
> 
> Sex is going the same way. With how sex is portrayed in the media, and in adult films in particular, sex is no longer about reproduction or emotional intimacy. It is about instant gratification. Both have been pushed to extremes that are not necessary, and I would argue are quite harmful long term.


Oh because Asian cuisine isn't also as delicious as possible, and animals don't enjoy their food so much they make grunting noises.

No people are not fat because they made food something to be enjoyed. It's largely to do with junk food and processed sugar and advertising, as well as manipulation of instincts.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

android654 said:


> I think if it is done with the intent to "feel regular" in the way that sex would remedy you, then yes, it is the same as it serves the same purpose. If it's being done for the hell of it, not only can you notice the difference, but I would agree with you that it is unnecessary, if it tips into that realm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, I cannot pretend to be part of the majority. I am not asexual but if someone told me I could never have sex again in my life I would only be mildly disappointed, and I'm sure I'd be over it pretty darn quick. It would not be devastating to any degree. I can achieve emotional/physical intimacy without sex just fine. 

Lots of people feel the negative consequences of too much sex. Even masturbating and porn are really taking their toll. I have a keen interest in biology and psychology, and have discussed this at length with my boyfriend (who has a degree in the field). We are both fascinated by what is happening to sex in our society. And the negative consequences associated with it. 

Anyway, not anti-sex. There is a huge difference though between casual sex with strangers and sex with your wife. They are fulfilling two very different desires, though I still don't think we _need_ either one. Casual sex is definitely not a need, but I will admit that sex with your partner can be important to your relationship. For some people.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> I see what you mean, and you raise some good points.
> 
> Nobody goes online to watch an embryo being conceived. People go online to see the actual sexual act, which is so far removed from 'real' sex that it's laughable. Similarly with food (excluding health/fitness commercials) people don't want to know what the Big Mac is going to do for their digestive system, they just respond to footage of other people enjoying it in almost an orgasmic fashion and think _I want that, too_.
> 
> ...


You may not need a Big Mac, but you do need food.

You may not need a supermodel or five spinning plate "tens" but sex is important to most people's health as adults.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

BlackDog said:


> My body wants lots of things I don't give it. It tells me every other day how much it wants wine, cheese, and bread but those items are at best unnecessary and at worst detrimental to my health. So I don't eat them.
> 
> Same for sex in my case. I want it, I get it and I feel better. OR, I don't get it, some time passes, and I feel better. Just like with the cheese. I will not die from lack of any of the above. I do not need them.


The French eat wine cheese and bread and are on average thinner than American people.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Arya said:


> I'm hoping you're calling her dumb because of her previous actions and not because she's blonde...... Technically, not all people any have a high sex drive or any desire to reproduce, so it's certainly not necessary for enjoying life to its fullest. When I'm busy doing other enjoyable things, sex is last on mind, and I'd certainly consider myself to be living and having a great life. It's not like all people who aren't getting sex are miserable and depressed. For some people, it's just not that important.



My point is directed to people who do want sex, and act like some system of manipulation will grant them sex.


----------



## dvnj22 (Apr 24, 2013)

fourtines said:


> You may not need a Big Mac, but you do need food.
> 
> You may not need a supermodel or five spinning plate "tens" but sex is important to most people's health as adults.


If I don't eat I die, if I don't have sex I live. You can't compare the two.


----------



## richclarke99 (Oct 11, 2013)

fourtines said:


> My point is directed to people who do want sex, and act like some system of manipulation will grant them sex.


Perhaps they don't feel they can just ask for it. Or they fear rejection. Or they struggle with the intimacy that would come from being more open about their own feelings. Or they have found that manipulation has helped them get other things in their lives?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

fourtines said:


> My point is directed to people who do want sex, and act like some system of manipulation will grant them sex.


Yeah, I've brought this up in other threads. People really overthink it. A woman either likes me or she doesn't. I could have the best PUA coach in the world, walk up and say the most profound thing ever, and it will get me nowhere. It is beyond technique.. Same thing with a woman with me. There are some women who I just exclude on looks. There is no kind of coaching that is gonna change tha and let her into my heart. 

People turn it into this deep philosophical/psychological challenge, all these philosophies and methods... Like it is some secret to be unlocked.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yeah, I've brought this up in other threads. People really overthink it. A woman either likes me or she doesn't. I could have the best PUA coach in the world, walk up and say the most profound thing ever, and it will get me nowhere. It is beyond technique.. Same thing with a woman with me. There are some women who I just exclude on looks. There is no kind of coaching that is gonna change tha and let her into my heart.


That's not entirely true--There are people quite gifted in the art of manipulation and can coax a reaction, even feelings, from someone with no basis present.


----------



## Arya (Oct 17, 2012)

fourtines said:


> My point is directed to people who do want sex, and act like some system of manipulation will grant them sex.


My comment was aimed at android654, not you, who said she wouldn't call a life without sex to be living, which I certainly disagree with.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

android654 said:


> That's not entirely true--There are people quite gifted in the art of manipulation and can coax a reaction, even feelings, from someone with no basis present.


Yes, but I don't think it can turn somebody you have no physical attraction to, desirable, through technique. It would take no less than a magician to get some particular girls to sleep with particular guys. They are beyond the reach of technique. Though I am honestly ignorant of PUA claims of what they can accomplish, or do accomplish. I am really not interested in them either.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Why? That's an easy question. Because I make life harder than it has to be. Duh. I'm neurotic


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Yes, but I don't think it can turn somebody you have no physical attraction to, desirable, through technique. It would take no less than a magician to get some particular girls to sleep with particular guys. They are beyond the reach of technique. Though I am honestly ignorant of PUA claims of what they can accomplish, or do accomplish. I am really not interested in them either.


You don't have to be well versed in PUA to know that there are talented liars and gullible people.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

android654 said:


> You don't have to be well versed in PUA to know that there are talented liars and gullible people.


There are people who PUA won't help. I have met them. I had a man who claimed to be a very talented PUA try to game me when I met him in person. I was underwhelmed. And he is not necessarily ugly either, but not terribly attractive either, maybe just not my type, or maybe overlooking that important detail.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Arya said:


> My comment was aimed at android654, not you, who said she wouldn't call a life without sex to be living, which I certainly disagree with.



Maybe people to whom sex is really more important, though. I would probably have a cow and be in a kind of hell if someone told me I would NEVER have sex again. 

These thoughts keep me from all kinds of destructive behavior though. Maybe if I didn't care about sex so much I would be morbidly obese, you know, sex really motivates some of us when other arguments are less compelling.

I speak as an admitted sensualist who thinks a day without art is like a day without sun.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Sex actually improves mental and physical health.

http://www.sportmedicine.ru/articles/is_sex_just_fun_-_how_sexual_activity_improves_health.pdf

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/health/sex-health-benefits-upwave/

There are probably better sources, heard it/read it a lot. 

A person can live without eating vegetables too, but their quality of life is probably better if they get some kale, and get fucked.


----------



## SPtheGhost (Apr 26, 2010)

im not sure i get this thread 

op is frustrated at people complaining about how hard it is to get sex? and thinks they should "just get it" ?


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

If you are a female ferret who has not been spayed, then I will acknowledge that sex is a need. You will probably die without it.

Why do female ferrets need to have sex? - topics.info.com

If you are a human, you more likely just want it.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

SPtheGhost said:


> im not sure i get this thread
> 
> op is frustrated at people complaining about how hard it is to get sex? and thinks they should "just get it" ?


Well they put so much effort in to what I see as clearly being the wrong thing. They think they are trying so hard to get sex, but it's like using a hammer when you need a screw driver.

If you don't do physical practical things to get sex, like try to look more attractive, or target more suitable or attainable partners, why do you think it's entitled to you?

The internet is a bizarre jumble sometimes of people, sometimes women, but more vocally men, making threads like why am I friend zoned, does PUA work, here's how you trick hot bitches...there is this bizarre mimicking of Se power or aggression without the Se attention to one's own animal body, not just the animal atteactiveness of others....like HELLO...Se does things to PHYSICALLY grab attention and tends to go for highest payoff with least effort...so why wouldn't you acknowledge this also if you really thought that belligerence and games were all it took? There is a reason some PUA guys look like such obvious dufuses...because they think they can objectify women's bodies while being wanted for their mind. No, no...if you want to be loved for your mind, love the.lady for her mind. If you want to love the women for their own bodies, worry about how she sees your body. Most normal people of course have a more natural blend of the two.

I speak mostly to the pathologically angry sexless minority, not average people or the intentionally celibate.


----------



## Ravenetta (Oct 23, 2013)

android654 said:


> Trust building and keeping your "tribe" tight are evolutionary tools we all use to stay safe, both men and women. It isn't as necessary today as it was a million years ago, but it's perfectly understandable that someone would feel that way. And masturbation, as a replacement, doesn't work, but as a stop-gap measure to pad yourself in between partners or encounters is kind of why we're able to perform it at all.
> 
> OP was talking more about people who have a developed sense of entitlement to sex, particularly specific sexual partners, without wanting to do any of the "work" involved with finding someone to the standards that have subscribed to, not everyone indiscriminately.
> 
> Magnanimity and altruism are also evolutionary instilled carrots that prod us along our survival. We, most of us, have a need to care for our tribe to certain extent, knowing that the favor will be returned or, if need be, they'd help the rest of the tribe in an equally helpful way.


adding entitlement to it does change it up a bit, but to still play devil's advocate, casual sex does come to saying, "I'm not invested in you, I don't care about you, but I'm really horny and would like to use your body for sex." it does take some social skill to pull off that proposition successfully. The more socially skilled, normative people take a lot for granted in what they actually have to say and do as the assumed rituals to communicate that.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

android654 said:


> No. First off it's not fighting and sharing in equal measure, but making a distinction between "us" and "them" and the protection needed for us to survive. That's different from being nice to people and beating them indiscriminately because we're apes and that's what we do.
> 
> Altruism among tribal cultures and defensiveness towards outsiders is an observed fact shared by the most primitive of tribal people still in existence, as well as observed by most apes all over the world. I'd suggest reading The Moral Landscape by Dr. Sam Harris to learn how hardwired morality has evolved through society to the modern age.


oh God, Sam Harris? Again with the pop sci shit. No thanks. You just lost what little credibility you had on the subject. Even other atheists panned that book as moronic. And I'd be happy to debate any specific claims that Harris makes. Since I know he can't back them up. 

Viciousness and defensiveness within tribal cultures is an observed fact too, now what? The only reason humans appear altruistic is because they have had institutions lashing and prodding them for thousands of years. Which is why the minute you take away authority, there is chaos. Many psychological experiments have shown that normal, well adjusted people are capable of inflicting great pain on others just because an authority told them to. A human's morality is related to his environment, and will change drastically. There is no hardwiring.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

monemi said:


> I'm not inspired by those forms of exercise. Maybe you're not inspired by running. Seems to me that the best form of exercise is the one you enjoy. Right?


I've lost almost 30 pounds in a little over 3 months just playing basketball, I don't even consider it exercising.


-------------------------------------

And as for the actual topic, I consider sex a real physical need (especially right now). I also consider things like goals and having dreams and aspirations real psychological needs. It might not be at the same level as things like food but in order to truly live you need these kinds of things and so much more. Most people just exist, I plan on working it out so I can actually live.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

fia said:


> adding entitlement to it does change it up a bit, but to still play devil's advocate, casual sex does come to saying, "I'm not invested in you, I don't care about you, but I'm really horny and would like to use your body for sex." it does take some social skill to pull off that proposition successfully. The more socially skilled, normative people take a lot for granted in what they actually have to say and do as the assumed rituals to communicate that.


But exchanges aren't always black and white. Sure, some people can walk up to perfect strangers and say, "Hey, wanna fuck?" and have the occasional good result. But more often than not, casual sex sort of just happens as an interaction builds. There's no fixed formula that'll guarantee desired results, more like luck, the kind of people you attract, and how well you interact. But for those who are socially misaligned or incapable, unless you're willing to sacrifice comfort to thrust yourself out there against your better judgment and comfort I don't think you have much right to complain. 










FearAndTrembling said:


> oh God, Sam Harris? Again with the pop sci shit. No thanks. You just lost what little credibility you had on the subject. Even other atheists panned that book as moronic. And I'd be happy to debate any specific claims that Harris makes. Since I know he can't back them up.
> 
> Viciousness and defensiveness within tribal cultures is an observed fact too, now what? The only reason humans appear altruistic is because they have had institutions lashing and prodding them for thousands of years. Which is why the minute you take away authority, there is chaos. Many psychological experiments have shown that normal, well adjusted people are capable of inflicting great pain on others just because an authority told them to. A human's morality is related to his environment, and will change drastically. There is no hardwiring.


I'm not debating you, so don't try and be snarky as if we were. I'm addressing this since you're so blatantly wrong, but I'm done with you after this.

Right, because you, random person on the internet, or a linguist like Noam Chomsky, are the authority on neural mapping, not a nuero scientist like Sam Harris. And humans are vicious and defensive when the stimuli calls for it, it is our hard-wiring that tells us when to whip out certain reactions to stimuli. And the infamous Stanford Prison experiment, the Milgram experiment and others are representative of social influence, assertiveness and submission are traits that are exhibited in other apes all the time. The reactions to these stimuli come from hormones triggered by the wiring in our brains. Psychology aside, neuroscience is king in determining how the brain works so far, and it's pretty clear that certain behaviors and patterns exist only because of the way it is wired into our brain.


----------



## associative (Jul 1, 2013)

Having read the majority of the thread, I find some convincing arguments on both sides.
I think I take issue with the word 'physical' in 'physical need''.
As the 'No's say 'physical' implies that a person would suffer serious health effects without sex.
On the other hand, there are some convincing arguments in favour of sex as a biological appetite that should be satisfied if a person is to live a happy life.

Therefore I propose the separation of 'sex' into 'sexual release' and 'sexual intimacy'.

Sexual release is a biological need. There has been mention of masturbation already, and this would qualify as sexual release. Likely a man would find this need fulfilled automatically at night should he not take matters into his own hands.

Sexual intimacy I would define as a psychological need. Love, intimacy, belonging and partnership I would argue are essential to the psychological wellbeing of an individual. 
Now, some may say these needs can be satisfied by other routes (religion, perhaps?), but while this is true, we might also say that a person does not 'need' to eat when their nutritional needs can be provided by IV drip, or that a person does not 'need' their kidneys when they can have dialysis. When we say 'need' in the context of an action it is shorthand for an effective way to achieve a 'needed' outcome.

If this sounds similar to stuff from Needs Theory, that's because it is.


----------



## GoodOldDreamer (Sep 8, 2011)

I like how the major defense for the statements made in the OP is that "it's a biological need for reproduction", and yet it's very clear from both the OP and nearly every post in the thread that actual reproduction is the last thing anyone in these casual hook up situations would want. :tongue:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

android654 said:


> But exchanges aren't always black and white. Sure, some people can walk up to perfect strangers and say, "Hey, wanna fuck?" and have the occasional good result. But more often than not, casual sex sort of just happens as an interaction builds. There's no fixed formula that'll guarantee desired results, more like luck, the kind of people you attract, and how well you interact. But for those who are socially misaligned or incapable, unless you're willing to sacrifice comfort to thrust yourself out there against your better judgment and comfort I don't think you have much right to complain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Biology/evolution plays little role in human morality. Everyone from Hume to Gould has destroyed this idea many times over. It is culture that is responsible for who are today. Our biology has changed very little in the last few thousand years, but our culture has changed greatly. We are slaves to our environment. If we had grown up in Greek times, we would probably have no problem with owning a slave. That was the world that was handed to us. 200 years ago I could probably burn my cat in the front yard and most people wouldn't even stare. Today, I would be the pariah of the neighborhood. There are places in the world today who treat animals in a way that would make most Westerners puke. But they don't puke, because they are conditioned otherwise. 

Harris says there are moral facts. I know his argument like the back of my hand. He says we shouldn't put arsenic in drinking water, because we know it's wrong. We feel it inside of us. It is a moral fact. But he doesn't understand that putting arsenic in drinking water being wrong is as self evident to him, as Allah existing is to a Muslim. These are subjective truths, that Harris wants to try to make into objective facts. Which they aren't. 
@_fourtines_ sig is totally right. Culture is the main driving force here. I am currently reading Dostoyevsky, and he gives insight like only an INFJ can. He says there are two types of men: those who exist only to replicate themselves --aka spread their genes, and the worldview they were handed down, and men who "utter new words". Our society is totally based on men who utter new words. And there is a biological analogy here. Men who utter new words are mutuations. Like Martin Luther King, he was a mutation. And selective forces act on that mutation. But that is how we evolve culturally, from people who utter new words. Who change. Through culture. They bring us with them. It is important that we retain these "new words". That is what our civilization is built on, or we never advance, as her sig indicates. 

This is the difference between biological evolution and cultural evolution, which Gould noted. Cultural evolution is much quicker and is lamarckian. For example, if I have skinny genes, I can pump iron all my life and get huge, but still pass on skinny genes to my kids. My improvements don't transfer. I am sure you know that. But say that my family has been catholic for centuries, and I come home and decide we are all protestant. That is instantaneous. I can change the dynamic of culture instantly. My daughters who were gonna be catholic, are now gonna be protestant. Simple as a word.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

fia said:


> adding entitlement to it does change it up a bit, but to still play devil's advocate, casual sex does come to saying, "I'm not invested in you, I don't care about you, but I'm really horny and would like to use your body for sex." it does take some social skill to pull off that proposition successfully. The more socially skilled, normative people take a lot for granted in what they actually have to say and do as the assumed rituals to communicate that.


Wow, your perspective on casual sex makes it sound robotic. There is a big space around not wanting to develop a lifelong relationship with a person as compared with wanting a one night stand. Casual sex can be many things and play out in many different ways. It just means that things don't get intense or emotional. Because you know, it's casual. It doesn't mean you strictly desire the person for their body. Or that you don't have any interest in them as a person. If you're talking one night stand, then yes you description is apt.


----------



## Ravenetta (Oct 23, 2013)

monemi said:


> Wow, your perspective on casual sex makes it sound robotic. There is a big space around not wanting to develop a lifelong relationship with a person as compared with wanting a one night stand. Casual sex can be many things and play out in many different ways. It just means that things don't get intense or emotional. Because you know, it's casual. It doesn't mean you strictly desire the person for their body. Or that you don't have any interest in them as a person. If you're talking one night stand, then yes you description is apt.


I guess I took the thread title too literally then. It doesn't include social or emotional need. I was also thinking about the PUA demographic and what all that entails. I don't think it has to be with a lifelong partner, but caring about a partner and trusting them, etc.



android654 said:


> But exchanges aren't always black and white. Sure, some people can walk up to perfect strangers and say, "Hey, wanna fuck?" and have the occasional good result. But more often than not, casual sex sort of just happens as an interaction builds. There's no fixed formula that'll guarantee desired results, more like luck, the kind of people you attract, and how well you interact. But for those who are socially misaligned or incapable, unless you're willing to sacrifice comfort to thrust yourself out there against your better judgment and comfort I don't think you have much right to complain.


I can understand your point in part, but I think people have a right to complain about whatever they choose. I'm also not entirely clear about what sort of person you are picturing when you say this. Is it someone who specifically wants casual sex, doesn't try, and then complains? 

Perhaps this will reveal a mindset I have that could again sound "robotic", but I don't see any reason to think people are not deterministic systems with a few random elements thrown in. If someone doesn't try, it just means that there is a root cause inhibiting them. Perhaps social pressure could result in what appears to be a choice to behave differently, but I suspect someone who doesn't try to socialize and feels lonely is likely hardwired in that behavior, or at least their reasons are compelling enough that I would choose the same path if I had lived their life. Maybe people have control over themselves and their social interactions, or maybe it is at least more highly constrained than an outside observer could make sense of when projecting their own life, experience, and choices onto someone else. I guess if someone were shooting themselves in the foot socially and sad about it, I may try to point out some advice, or maybe just ask what they really want. Some people may desire some aspects of casual sex but not others. That conflicted mindset is quite common to people and can lead to lots of complaining which is a cultural taboo, but rather neutral in my mind. How could I ever know if someone has a right to complain?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

fia said:


> I guess I took the thread title too literally then. It doesn't include social or emotional need. I was also thinking about the PUA demographic and what all that entails. I don't think it has to be with a lifelong partner, but caring about a partner and trusting them, etc.


It did. But fulfilling a need for sex doesn't mean that it has to be to the exclusivity of other needs. Just because the goal is sex, doesn't mean that seeking casual sex means the only option is a one night stand.


----------



## Ravenetta (Oct 23, 2013)

monemi said:


> It did. But fulfilling a need for sex doesn't mean that it has to be to the exclusivity of other needs. Just because the goal is sex, doesn't mean that seeking casual sex means the only option is a one night stand.


That is helpful to know, and I come from the social bias of being a card carrying nerd who has had more socially atypical friends than i can count, and who has spent hours and hours listening to various lonely people who had sexual frustration, and I had my own reasons for it in my life as well, so I could probably give you a fairly wide ranging answer o your question, but I would need to spend a bit of time trying to boil it down to a few points. 

fwiw, I would not say to any of the lonely people I've met that they should jump in socially against their better judgement or that that their loneliness isn't justified. That's not a helpful approach.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

monemi said:


> Wow, your perspective on casual sex makes it sound robotic. There is a big space around not wanting to develop a lifelong relationship with a person as compared with wanting a one night stand. Casual sex can be many things and play out in many different ways. It just means that things don't get intense or emotional. Because you know, it's casual. It doesn't mean you strictly desire the person for their body. Or that you don't have any interest in them as a person. If you're talking one night stand, then yes you description is apt.


The last time I had sex was a one night stand. Of course, it was great. I have said before that sex is almost like a religious experience to me. Maybe an INFJ thing.

ANYWAY, the point is that while this girl was pounding me with immense pleasure, the idea that came into my head, and that I wanted to communicate, was, "I love you." Even though I have no emotional/intellectual interest in this woman. But, in that moment, I loved her. I wanted to say it, but didn't for obvious reasons. I stopped and refined the thought in my head, and I said to myself, "No, you don't love her. You love the way she makes you feel." But then I thought, isn't that what all love is? You love the way the person makes you feel. So I was trying to distinguish loving someone and loving the way they make you feel. This was all going on during the sex too lol.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

fia said:


> I can understand your point in part, but I think people have a right to complain about whatever they choose. I'm also not entirely clear about what sort of person you are picturing when you say this. Is it someone who specifically wants casual sex, doesn't try, and then complains?
> 
> Perhaps this will reveal a mindset I have that could again sound "robotic", but I don't see any reason to think people are not deterministic systems with a few random elements thrown in. If someone doesn't try, it just means that there is a root cause inhibiting them. Perhaps social pressure could result in what appears to be a choice to behave differently, but I suspect someone who doesn't try to socialize and feels lonely is likely hardwired in that behavior, or at least their reasons are compelling enough that I would choose the same path if I had lived their life. Maybe people have control over themselves and their social interactions, or maybe it is at least more highly constrained than an outside observer could make sense of when projecting their own life, experience, and choices onto someone else. I guess if someone were shooting themselves in the foot socially and sad about it, I may try to point out some advice, or maybe just ask what they really want. Some people may desire some aspects of casual sex but not others. That conflicted mindset is quite common to people and can lead to lots of complaining which is a cultural taboo, but rather neutral in my mind. How could I ever know if someone has a right to complain?


That's a perfectly fine point, that things may be harder for some than others, that some just don't fit into the mold. However, in this conversation, the expectation for someone to work to get to you or that you have a right to someone because it's your desire with no expectation of any effort on your right really places all the blame on you. If you want something, someone, no matter how daunting it may seem, it's up to you to work towards that goal because no one is poised to hand you the things you want or need simply because you want them.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

Maybe they want sex to be more than just something physical, so they don't go for one night stands. I'm reasonably attractive, I dress well and take care of myself, and I know how to interact with the opposite sex. I probably could get laid if I really wanted to. But I want a deeper connection with someone before I have sex with them, and that doesn't happen very often. 
And yes, I do have normal sexual desires. I have just as high a sex drive as anyone. I just prefer to deal with it in ways that don't involve having sex with people I don't actually feel an emotional attachment to.
And I also find if rather odd that people compare the need for sex to the need for food. If you don't eat for long enough, you'll die. If you don't have sex, well, then, you'll be horny and uncomfortable, but I have yet to hear of a person who's literally died from not having sex. Yes, most people are sexual, and yes, we are biologically wired to want sex. But treating it as if it's as much a need as food and water is absurd.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The last time I had sex was a one night stand. Of course, it was great. I have said before that sex is almost like a religious experience to me. Maybe an INFJ thing.
> 
> ANYWAY, the point is that while this girl was pounding me with immense pleasure, the idea that came into my head, and that I wanted to communicate, was, "I love you." Even though I have no emotional/intellectual interest in this woman. But, in that moment, I loved her. I wanted to say it, but didn't for obvious reasons. I stopped and refined the thought in my head, and I said to myself, "No, you don't love her. You love the way she makes you feel." But then I thought, isn't that what all love is? You love the way the person makes you feel. So I was trying to distinguish loving someone and loving the way they make you feel. This was all going on during the sex too lol.


Can't say love has entered into my mind during casual sex, but everyone's different.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

fourtines said:


> I suppose you are right, but some guys do get it, get it quite easily and naturally, but they are mocked as jocks and pretty boys by the elite crew of "nice guys" who think that the girls next door should love them for their inner beauty, while even objectifying women sexually and physically. That is not nice. If you were really nice you would get to know some one, try to look your best for her, and not get pissy and entitled because "well she is pretty, but not as perfect as xyz movie star."
> 
> I give in, ok. Objectification for every one equally, fine. You want perfect tens, ok fine, but if you are a four yourself you may want to invest more time into your own appearance. Or even better, raise your self as a man who is a six or seven, and be content to have good sex with sixes and sevens, like the people who have dated frequently and naturally since puberty do it.
> 
> Maybe sex is to some people as algebra is to me.


I think part of it is that a lot of people are great people, but too often have little personality ticks that prevent them from having sex, none of them really being their fault. For example, I'm shy, introverted, and have sensory integration disorder. None of these make me a bad person, but it really makes it harder for me to make a connection with a woman I like. I've been working on them little by little, but every woman who's ever asked me out, it has been either entirely or mostly based on physical attraction. Only in one case of three did I actually have a conversation with the person who asked me out before they asked me out.

And I'm gonna bombard the _ALL-ENCOMPASSING OBJECTIVE 1-10 SCALE™_ for a minute. One person's 4 is another person's 9, and it's really subjective if you think about it. In fact, I have two groups of attractive women in my head. "Trophy" women who society tells me are attractive, and women who I'm actually sexually attracted to. And I admit it's objectification in another direction.

I prefer chubbier women physically, while my brother actually prefers an ectomorphic build, which is good because our preferences are diametrically opposed, and neither of us would be particularly inclined to try and date the other's exes or current girlfriends.


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Yes I know that some people have emotional issues or are excessively timid or shy, or have pathological self hatred, or really only have boys under eighteen and old men over sixty surrounding them.
> 
> But barring those circumstances, what the fuck is it like to not know how to get sex, as a physical act, not a relationship? I mean if you want food you learn to cook or drive to Carl's Jr.
> 
> ...


Sure, hungry? Go grab some food, its only instinctual.

Horny? submit to other's ideals to merely increase your percentage of sex.

I think thats how some folks may view it. I don't understand how people cannot use sex solely for spiritual, romantic connection where sharing is pouring the entire pitcher into a glass, even if it overflows. But, I am not going to discredit anyone I encounter because of our dissimilar views. I would still try to have sex, even if they had to pretend I was some soulless, heartless fucking machine. If its physical satisfaction you crave most, just grab a vibrator or something without feelings to share with you (whether accidentally or on purpose).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Philosophaser Song Boy said:


> Sure, hungry? Go grab some food, its only instinctual.
> 
> Horny? submit to other's ideals to merely increase your percentage of sex.
> 
> I think thats how some folks may view it. I don't understand how people cannot use sex solely for spiritual, romantic connection where sharing is pouring the entire pitcher into a glass, even if it overflows. But, I am not going to discredit anyone I encounter because of our dissimilar views. I would still try to have sex, even if they had to pretend I was some soulless, heartless fucking machine. If its physical satisfaction you crave most, just grab a vibrator or something without feelings to share with you (whether accidentally or on purpose).


Vibrators and dildos are nothing, nothing like being TOUCHED.

And to say heartless/soulless is pretty much exaggerated. I know people sure who do sex that way, but that isn't the whole story. There are respectful hook ups, I promise.

Just as there are marriages with violence and or infidelity,or simply lonely sexlessness.

Life is not that cut and dried. 

I guess I am simply not afraid to live. Living means bumps and scrapes. I'd rather have scars than live some dry vicarious life.


----------



## Ravenetta (Oct 23, 2013)

Human sexuality can be on the surface simple, but in all contexts it is psychologically complex. Some people imprint very strongly by experience (in MBTI this may be Si?), and people correlate sexuality with many other types of feelings, ideals, and fears based on their experience and how they view reality. I'm not even entirely sure if any person can change the nature of their sexuality. I've seen various people in extremely deep ruts. Orgasm is one of the strongest reinforcers, so if it is accompanied by fear, pleasure, security, uncertainty, pleasure, pain, or anything, it is difficult to break those associations. It is rather unsexual to analyze the depth and complexity of it, but sexuality is a microcosm of a person's entire psyche from what I understand of it. It is easier to be sexual when not thinking of it too deeply, but that doesn't change the fact that it runs to the core of a person's hurts and hope and all of life.

This is the reason that people can't always resolve their basic primal, physical needs with their psychological needs.


----------



## Villainous (Dec 31, 2012)

Daithi said:


> You can live without sex. You can't live without food or water. If its a need then how are Buddhist monks still alive. I am a 23 year old virgin, and I am still alive.


Sounds like a lame existence


----------

