Is sex a need or a want?

It is limited to that if you're talking about basic needs. Because from saying its not limited to survival, you could reasonably deduce that just about anything could be a need, if it's necessary for you to achieve a particular goal, or feeling. I am emotionally unfulfilled, and therefore, am not happy. So certain things like just being able to live a normal life, and find love in a relationship would be things necessary for me to be happy. But I can survive without them. So while sex in the whole package of a loving relationship is a need (or at least one of them) for me in order to feel in some way fufilled, and adequate as a human being, its not necessary for my survival. So it is a need, but it's not a basic need.

Although I suppose you could then argue if you're not being fulfilled and are unhappy in life then you'd be better off dead, in which instance, the basic needs arent really a lot of good to you. lol

 

Gah! I'm a bit of an idiot, what can I say!?

I meant it more personally to Invisible Soul. You can live without actually physically doing these things. Can you live without wanting to? Perhaps. Rarely. But humans generally don't.

 

Really? I didnt realise that. lol

You're right, and that's why i said it could be called a need, if not a basic need. I am living without it, and surviving, but if anyone asked me if that was a situation I enjoyed being in, Id be lying if I answered yes to that question. Although as Ive stated before I see the sex thing as part of a whole package, and not something on it's own.

 

sex is a choice.
Like with food, there is a huge menu to choose from.
And a big part of eating is anticipation.
If we just eat and eat we never experience anticipation.
The greatest seasoning is hunger.

With sex, sex is literally 'sexual intercourse'.
So I believe between all of us we can at least agree sexual intercourse is only one kind of intimacy, and at the farthest end, not very intimate at all when we see it portrayed unmeaningfully and in the public, as a mental act with no heart.

The path of enlightenment with food is fasting; intentionally, and privately.

The path of enlightenment with the intensity we feel towards special someone(s) is to feel the energy inside, get physically close although it's not required, acknowledge each other, don't touch - don't discharge the energy. Feel the intensity. I have had out of body experiences this way, orgasms which crush the whole self, that is the ego - a third-party (see my other post)- evaporates, and it is only the 'one'. Every cell has an orgasm. There is no 'tired, limp' afterwards.

Instead, there is continued intimacy.

However, many people have given up on special, private relations, and instead treat each other generally, like 'just one more wet hole to plug' or 'one more itch to scratch'. Some think they don't have the energy to put into the build-up to truly intimate releases, so 'sex' or being together usually with the opposite sex unless they have some kind of hang-ups (imho), becomes a quick discharge, leaving them no better and usually worse, than they started.

It takes many years, for many of us/those born to industrialized society with all the complications created, to clear out and straighten out the energy lines allowing for the body to communicate, and a lot more discipline then 'scratch an itch' to the believe intimacy is not about sex - although it definitely involves what is most-often called 'sexual energy', really an intensity, a feeling of life.

Turn re-creation into re-creating.
Instead of ending up creating another physical being, or artificially capturing (condom or other method) the energy & wasting it, learn as men to pleasure her, to pour yourself into her, not to touch or pleasure yourself, and out of that which you do, feel what I am talking about. It hits you like a ton of bricks, in a nice way...

Ladies, or women: as a man I can say: allow your man to pleasure you. Don't avoid intimacy: you might laugh- I have found intimacy outside of sex is also a problem with particular females: they have a degree of brain-interference with trust, however our basic place as men, is to trust. We want to trust one another. This is why the public, all dead corporate entities including all 'governments' and their agents, attempt to get us to not trust one another. We must get out of our heads, and with that, goes all of the programming (hollywood images and 6'oclock news) and sit firmly within our hearts. Then we can trust easily. And powerfully.

That is our law-form as men. That is to say it is the law-form of living people, males and females.

[on proofing this I realized some people might wonder what trust has to do with intimacy...]

 

hey baby im dyin give me head yea...

 

"Asceticism is the highest form of vanity," Buddha.

Stay Brown,
Rev J

 

If its been so long that you dont even know what it feels like anymore. THEN its a NEED ):


well that could be said for a relationship too ):

 

Well, if not an entire species, at least an individual can survive without sex. So it's not physically a need. But for me at least, it's a want strong enough where if I were given a gun and told I would never, ever have sex again... the following results would be ghastly.

Some want it badder than others.

 

Don't confuse appetite with hunger! They're two entirely different things. Hunger doesn't make you yearn for beautiful foods. It makes you eat anything in your reach that you can, whether it's a food you like or not. Is this what you're trying to say about sex?

The rest of your post is a bit 'WTF?!' to be honest, you Sex God.

 

If you did remove sex from an entire species, would nobody ever want it anymore? If we stop having sex, the feelings are still there.

 

I don't usually reply twice to a thread, but i sense some fraud-mind (public schooling) in here:

Asceticism:
A general definition from American Heritage:
"An austere, simple way of life in which persons renounce material pleasures and devote their energy to moral or religious purpose."

especially changed to 'an ethical or spiritual purpose' from a particular point of view.

Now to the history of the word ascetic, to find the substantive intention:
Origin:
1640–50; < Gk askētikós subject to rigorous exercise, hardworking, equiv. to askē- ( see askesis) + -tikos -tic

The 16th century period, and later definitions, seem to add 'self-mortification', continuing into modern, general definitions. An obsession with self-mortification seems to be part of the breakdown of advanced culture, a false path to spiritual advancement. The cultures affected, are barely making the way out of the book-burning phase where much knowledge was locked away, and wide-spread copies destroyed, echoing back to the burning of over a million scrolls at Alexandria.

My post was not about denial for the sake of denial, nor was it leaning on or enforcing the fraud general movements of 'death=joy'. I do acknowledge the particular growth of ego-release (death), however the ego is not us (see my other post).

It's clear from experiences, if one allows the sexual energy to build up, it transmutes into other forms, positive forms. It requires patience and making mistakes along the way; diligence is rewarded. A 'monk with cilice' label/projection, does not fit because it does not engage in massage and other intimate acts. It is clear many chase extremes:

How many females are anorexic? How many body builders abuse steroids? How many business operators chase after debt notes?

'There cannot be a reduction in the sexual/eating/etc act without a corresponding increase in self-abuse' - I don't agree. A myth, used to promote the idea of men (males or females) remaining as cattle/voters/humans/subjects/slaves/wards/citizens (all at the root identical concepts) as a good idea.


- fire in the soul
--
all special rights reserved without prejudice or recourse.

 

I suppose in a way, its probably a bit easier for someone like me to go without sex and intimacy, than it would be for someone who was used to those things, and really enjoyed them. You cant miss what you've never had I guess. So if someone who had already experienced it was forced to do without it forever, I'd imagine it would be harder than for someone like me who has never experienced it.

Everyone is different though, and some people would find it much harder to live without sex than others. Not everyone has the same level of sex drive. So its most certainly not a need for every human being.

 

Depends on the person. For some it's both a need and a want. Others just a want. Others may not be interested in sex at all.

 

Fuck off or grow up. Insulting people won't win you an argument.

 

Sex is bullshit. Everyone acts like it's THE thing. It just puts me off from it all. There are so many amazing things to see and do and learn. Sex is just to be brainwashed to want people to make people.
Getting off is definately a need though. I have wasted so much of my life getting off because of my stupid ass body's needs its ridiculous.

 

It is a need.

You notice how the most religiously celibate people are typically the most deranged people in our society?

Case and point.

 

It may not be a basic need for survival, but I am a much happier, calmer, more peaceful person when I am getting some. I can't have any more children, so this is purely a mental health/pleasure issue for me now.

 

Ive been celibate all my life, and Im not deranged. So no, it's not a need. You can't say every person who's never had sex is deranged.

 

True. Deprived may be a better description.

 

I definitely would say that I'm deprived, but I wouldn't say that's all down to lack of sex. It might be a factor, but there's other things I feel deprived of that causes me more hurt and distress than that. Maybe that's because I see sex as part of a whole package, and not a thing on it's own.

Religiously celibate people usually are deranged, but that isn't just down to being celibate.