Feelings?A Luxury?

[Avniel]

I still don't see what confuses you Avnil. Go watch an old Sesame Street episode. Remember the old,"Which one of these is not like the others?" You have ham, hot dogs, and pork chops, then you have a book. One of those things is clearly not part of the original group. Sex as an individual drive, is about finding pleasure, not a desperation to procreate. Air doesn't bring pleasure, and even though food and drink can, they don't have to in order to function. The sex drive is all about finding pkeasure, as opposed to a need that if not met results in death.

Also, I agree with Apostolic. I don't believe that humans are even animals, so I definitely see that differently.

look for the word sex and sexual intimacy to understand what Maslow was saying. Then read the area that each feel in.

 

[Romanseight2005]

look for the word sex and sexual intimacy to understand what Maslow was saying. Then read the area that each feel in.

What is your point? Sex is not a NEED, period. There are people who live their entire lives without it, happily.

 

[Avniel]

What is your point? Sex is not a NEED, period. There are people who live their entire lives without it, happily.

What is your point? I can't even make a connection to your comment. When did I say people needed to have sex to be happy? Your not even addressing my post at all.

It's like I'm saying MJ is the greatest basketball player of all time then you say he never played football. Nothing you have said is on the same topic as what we've been talking about????

I said sex as in reproducing is needed for life you said there are people that never had sex and they are happy??????what?

I posted the pyramid as evidence the term sex and sexual intimacy are not meant the same as you take it. You stated "sex is not a need there are people that don't have sex."

My mind is really blown away??????



We aren't on the same page or even reading the same book.

 

[Hetta]

What is your point? I can't even make a connection to your comment. When did I say people needed to have sex to be happy? Your not even addressing my post at all.

It's like I'm saying MJ is the greatest basketball player of all time then you say he never played football. Nothing you have said is on the same topic as what we've been talking about????

That's not even in the ballpark as a comparison. Your example is a denial of fact. Obviously MJ did play basketball, so someone saying he didn't would be a denial of that fact.

What the other poster said is that some people don't ever have sex and are just fine with that. That's not a denial of fact, it's accurate, because you only have to look at nuns and priests and other celibates.

 

[Hetta]

No I'm not going to argue because of my views on the comments posted I can't take the post serious.

If you can't take it seriously, you must have skipped biology 101. I can post you 100's of websites that speak to the mechanics of the body. Can you post any serious ones that state that sperm and ovum have an independent life of their own, where they can think and need and want to survive?

 

[Puffinstuff]

I think I have this figured out LOL>>and maybe what Maslow meant and why the confusion with sex being a base need for survival.

Sex needs to happen for us to exist(be born) as an individual.That is a done deal.It doesn't mean that after we are here as an individual having sex ourselves is a base survival need for us individually.Its just we need to be conceived to even have existence.After we are conceived starting in the womb we need oxygen/ nutrients /I think we sleep lol..we practice excreting by swallowing and eliminating /homeostasis and of course this is why I would put security of body in there.We NEED to be protected starting in the womb it is a vital base need for survival.We are kept warm and "sheltered" .After we are born ..our base needs continue to be those 6 .Not sex for ourselves i.e us having sex after birth .Food /air/sleep/excretion /homeostasis and IMO safety and security of body.Our need for sex to survive has already been done.That part important as it is to survive/or lets say exist is over and only needed to happen one time for our personal existence/ survival and it was someone else having sex not us as an individual.Sex is over as a base need to exist once we are conceived.That's why in that context it can be on a list with other things that happen without us thinking about it.Because we aren't the ones that even had sex that started our life.

Sex for us after birth as an individual as in engaging in that activity as a need is why sexual intimacy is on the list and its higher up and why it is optional unlike the others on the base physiological needs. Sex on the base needs is not meaning that after we are here as an individual we need sex to survive or that we even need it all after we are born.That explains why we(some) can never have sex their entire life and be perfectly healthy and content in life .

On the base physiological needs it simply means you needed(past tense through sex one time) to be conceived to be here at all.You needed a man and a woman to have sex (because that is how its normally done) to be a human/exist..It has nothing to do with you as an individual after that having a base need to have sex for your personal survival after you are here similar to how you need air or food .

Its not about your "need" to HAVE sex.Its about all of us being dependent on sex happening for us to even be alive in the first place.Not about a man having 7 times the testosterone level or having nocturnal emissions if he doesn't have sex enough therefore its comparable to air.If our PARENTS had not had sex we wouldn't be alive.Not once we are alive we personally need sex anymore.(as an individual need).

 

[mkgal1]

Look at it this way, Avniel....and maybe you'll understand what a lot of people are trying to say. Each group has to have a criteria.....something that groups them together, and sets them a part from the other groups. In the first rung....there's "breathing; food; water; sleep; homeostasis; excretion; and sex". What would be the criteria that groups *all* of those? If you take sex out of that group, you could easily say that group's criteria would be "necessary to survive". With it there.....you can't.

 

[Puffinstuff]

Look at it this way, Avniel....and maybe you'll understand what a lot of people are trying to say. Each group has to have a criteria.....something that groups them together, and sets them a part from the other groups. In the first rung....there's "breathing; food; water; sleep; homeostasis; excretion; and sex". What would be the criteria that groups *all* of those? If you take sex out of that group, you could easily say that group's criteria would be "necessary to survive". With it there.....you can't.

If you look at it from the angle of how we came to exist (as an individual) we "needed" first for our parents to have sex.In that sense to "survive/be here /exist" in the first place we "needed" sex.Not to have sex ourselves after we were conceived and born.I don't think Maslow intended for sex as a base need for survival to mean that we as individuals need to have sex for our own personal survival after we get here.He includes sexual intimacy (for ourselves after we are here ) to cover a humans desire for personal reasons to have sex themselves.

In a odd way .The sex on the base level has nothing to do with us .Its not a "choice" it just has to happen for us to be here.

I could look at my newborn and honestly say they needed "sex" to be here as a new individual person.After that whether they need /want to engage in sex at some point in their life is a completely differrent thing all together but definately they don't need it sex to "survive" exist anymore.

 

[Puffinstuff]

Oh and that is the reason "sex" sticks out.All of our other individual base needs WE do we eat/we breath/we excrete we sleep and homeostasis I believe is just happening in OUR body .The sex on that list we didn't do we had nothing to do with it.Our parents did.Its not meaning that we need to have sex ourselves to survive.

 

[Puffinstuff]

Oh but in that case what makes my mind still go in a circle.I never had a "need " to survive before my parents had "sex' so I didn't need them to have sex.Ever.

Its the wording.I would say that in order for me to have come into existence my parents "needed" to have sex.Not that I "needed" my parents to have sex for me to "survive".I couldn't have needed anything before I was.After I was conceived there were physiological needs for me to survive and be born etc etc..

 

[Avniel]

I think I have this figured out LOL>>and maybe what Maslow meant and why the confusion with sex being a base need for survival.

Sex needs to happen for us to exist(be born) as an individual.That is a done deal.It doesn't mean that after we are here as an individual having sex ourselves is a base survival need for us individually.Its just we need to be conceived to even have existence.After we are conceived starting in the womb we need oxygen/ nutrients /I think we sleep lol..we practice excreting by swallowing and eliminating /homeostasis and of course this is why I would put security of body in there.We NEED to be protected starting in the womb it is a vital base need for survival.We are kept warm and "sheltered" .After we are born ..our base needs continue to be those 6 .Not sex for ourselves i.e us having sex after birth .Food /air/sleep/excretion /homeostasis and IMO safety and security of body.Our need for sex to survive has already been done.That part important as it is to survive/or lets say exist is over and only needed to happen one time for our personal existence/ survival and it was someone else having sex not us as an individual.Sex is over as a base need to exist once we are conceived.That's why in that context it can be on a list with other things that happen without us thinking about it.Because we aren't the ones that even had sex that started our life.

Sex for us after birth as an individual as in engaging in that activity as a need is why sexual intimacy is on the list and its higher up and why it is optional unlike the others on the base physiological needs. Sex on the base needs is not meaning that after we are here as an individual we need sex to survive or that we even need it all after we are born.That explains why we(some) can never have sex their entire life and be perfectly healthy and content in life .

On the base physiological needs it simply means you needed(past tense through sex one time) to be conceived to be here at all.You needed a man and a woman to have sex (because that is how its normally done) to be a human/exist..It has nothing to do with you as an individual after that having a base need to have sex for your personal survival after you are here similar to how you need air or food .

Its not about your "need" to HAVE sex.Its about all of us being dependent on sex happening for us to even be alive in the first place.Not about a man having 7 times the testosterone level or having nocturnal emissions if he doesn't have sex enough therefore its comparable to air.If our PARENTS had not had sex we wouldn't be alive.Not once we are alive we personally need sex anymore.(as an individual need).

We agree I think sex as a need scares some women into a defense mode that some wont look past the word sex and need. That is why I could argue with you and consider it a valid argument you argued you had no need to be produced which was an interesting concept. When people say sex isn't a need they mean sexual intimacy.

This further my point that Maslow's law applys to the world not the church. Christ beat all of Man's nature starting with conception. Maslow's law is one of a sinful nature Christ taught us how to beat this.

 

[Avniel]

Oh but in that case what makes my mind still go in a circle.I never had a "need " to survive before my parents had "sex' so I didn't need them to have sex.Ever.

Its the wording.I would say that in order for me to have come into existence my parents "needed" to have sex.Not that I "needed" my parents to have sex for me to "survive".I couldn't have needed anything before I was.After I was conceived there were physiological needs for me to survive and be born etc etc..

Now you understand why I wrote off some posters post as irrevalant and you gained my respect as a poster. We debated until we both realized we disagree but it's all love because you argued on topic which was refreshing here. Some of our other debates I wrote you off as "another on of those posters" that don't have a valid argument and are disagreeing to disagree. From now on I'm taking your posts more serious.

 

[Puffinstuff]

Well part of or" the scary" part honestly Avniel many see that as Maslow meaning that we as humans at base need "sex" as in sex for ourselves(to have sex) not to be created in the first place( maybe they include that) but as a personal need after we land here on earth.That is comparable to eating sleeping breathing etc etc.Its not just women men will read it as that.That's why you will see men and women saying "no I don't need sex to survive" the scary part are the ones that say yes it is a need like air /food in the context of the individual human urge to have sex.And further its distinguished that is a male need to have sex.That is the scary part.Because its wrong.Or lets say in that context (air /food) utterly exaggerated to the hilt as any kind of personal need.Including I don't think Maslow even meant sex for the individual after birth in the first place.But its latched on to as if it is.Causing the confusion and the defensiveness.Because its assumed by many he means our "need" to HAVE sex.And is doesn't help that security of body is placed as a higher level need after the "sex need".Which I believe that one is in the wrong place period.Forget the sex debate.We start off in the womb needing that or we die.

 

[Puffinstuff]

LOL! But if you read up on it he was critisized for placing sex as a base lower level individual need like air and food etc.So IF he meant to say we need sex as a base need after we are already here again I will say BS.And its not just a woman thing or out of some fear of sex being a need for some.There are plenty of men who will disagree and its really for the obvious reasons.It does not fit with the others that every human being needs .He was critisized in other areas but the sex as a base need has been debated for a long time.

 

[Puffinstuff]

Yep now I'm back to square one after going off into a twist on conception .Maslow clearly meant sex as a base need (without intimacy) needs to be satisfied like food and air before we could achieve self actualization .Its not even just the sex .You can punch so many holes in his hierarchy its not even funny to the point the entire theory many aspects have been falsified.Including many who don't have enough food (could use a lot more to eat) could arguably be considered self actualized and definately have a sense of belonging and love (loving and being loved) .

Apparrently the theory of attachment is a model being used in place of his theory .And it starts off with the basic human need being the infant/caregiver attachment.Hence the Romanian babies died.