I have not done much research on this topic but I would like to know if someone has more insight into this issue then I do. First off a little backround knowledge before I ask my question: Within Maslows hierarchy of needs the first needs are Physiological needs. All Physiological needs have to be met or one would die as a result of its deficiency, except sex. Man can be born, live a long life and die without ever having sex or even masturbating. Now since this is an innate need and we were created with this energy then my question is could this energy be channeled if we are not having sex or masturbating? Can we harness that unused energy and do great things above and beyond those having sex? Also why does it seem that some of the most creative, and most powerful people in history were gay or sexually promiscious, is this because of their abonormal excess of sexual energy. Alot of history was carved by the hands of many gay or sexually promiscuious men; Alexander, Hitler, Most famous men from Greece and Rome, Michealengo, King James, Prophets etc. What is this correlation between sex, power and seemingly advanced mental abilities?
Die of old age? or no sex? I don't understand Lots of excess sexual energy inhabiting the prison system. Are you suggesting John Wayne Gacy could have been one of the greats?
m? Who told you that sex is not a need? No, dear, sex is a need and without it the human feels tortured. The first three needs are physiological, safety, and love. Sex falls under either physiological or love (or both). Without having these met, an individual can't concentrate on anything else.
Sex is an urge not a need. Love is more of a need than sex could ever be, and most people never have love.
You say sex is not a need because you can easily get it. Sex is a physical urge, like the urge for food. You can't do much about hormones, unless you cut your glands out. Most people never have love.... HAHAHAHAHAH. Support your claims.
The want for food can be neglected, yes. The individual will slowly grow weak and die. The want for sleep can also be neglected. The individual will slowly grow insane, lose control, and fall asleep. Lack of sleep also slows down the metabolism and unballances hormones. Wants, satisfactions of which are necessary for health, are called needs.
Uh? Isn't the whole point of being alive to have sex and pro-create? Sex is a pstchological need, it is our nature. Love is more of a want than sex is.
Most people never know what love is, just observe how people treat each other on a regular basis. Sex is an urge, not a need, you won't die if you don't have sex. You can always donate to a sperm bank and let the sperm doctors make women pregnant, what difference does it make? Sex has little value in the modern world, not just because it's too easy to get, but because it's not an expression of love anymore. Sex has little to no emotional value, and when it does, it's usually not as good.
You can procreate without having sex, you can donate sperm. Procreation without love, simply leads to some of these unwanted unloved children commiting suicide. Just creating babies for the sake of creating babies is stupid in my opinion and is one of the reasons why we are going extinct. So no, the purpose of life is not to procreate irresponsibly. Love is more important than procreation because without it, you procreate without purpose, and then you risk having kids who can't find a purpose because you can't find one, when they ask why you had them, you are going to be like "oh, I was horny, I needed to get off, and so I had you by accident", not the sorta message you want to send your child is it? Sex is not the meaning of life, sex without love is no different than any other mechanical activity, go watch porn, go to a strip club, or go pay a prostitute, but don't have children in that way, for that reason.
If you totally abstain from sex, not only will you be, but you'll also feel, like a weird bastard. I know I would, and I'm already a weird bastard even though I have sex And are creative.
Sex is not a need, if you don't have sex, you'll have wet dreams. In fact, I think people have too much sex, so it's obviously not a need. Nothings wrong with sex, but don't pretend that sex is love, and don't procreate because you WANTED sex, you should procreate with the person who you feel is worth having your child, how good they are in bed isnt important when it comes to procreation as long as they are good enough that you can get hard and go through with it. What's more important is that they be a good mother, and are a good partner, and sometimes this is not the same thing as being good in bed, being good at sex does not mean you'll be good at love, as they are completely the opposite of each other. Sex is a sport, love is not a game, it's a life commitment, and most people NEVER find love, never, they think they do, then they break up and find out they didn't, it's extremely rare to find it, and usually when people find it it's not mutual. Most people who are married are not in love, they are just best friends who settled with each other. This is fine, because searching for love in my opinion is a waste of time and effort, but look, if you are going to have kids with someone, make sure they are your best friend, your best friend in the world, someone who you are capable of loving, and living with, even if you arent in love. Thats what a partner is supposed to be.
They may not be IN love after a number of years, but it sure as damn' helps if they are in love when they get married. If only best friends got married to each other we'd All be gays and lesbians. I believe in love. I may not be In love but I still love my wife after 35 years of marriage and we were never best friends, though being friendly helps. I don't like my wife... I love her!
Naturally? It's a basic need to have sex even if we can go to the sperm bank. Just like eating, our brains are programed for it. It comes from all those years that the spem bank wasn't available, like all of the countless years of evolution maybe? Not true. You can love your child despite not loving their other parent, I've seen this many times just with my mom, who's had 8 kids. You can even love kids that aren't yours, but I believe this is a recent development. First, WE ARE NOT GOING EXTINCT. We may be a very self destructive species, but we're not close to extinct. We have a more widespread, denser population than any other time in history. There's places where you're only allowed to have one child. Population will keep going up, unless nuclear war breaks out. And again, creating babies and protecting them into maturity is the reason for out existance, how can that be stupid? Fullfilling our purpose in life is stupid. By the way, EVERY animals has offspring just for the sake of doing it. If your theory was right, wouldn't there be no animals? But it is to procreate. I never said irresponsibly. Why don't we all try to love each other for the next 100 years, and see how long our species survives? A bear, leopard, and all other solitary animals procreate without purpose? What about a lion, surely it can't "love" every lioness, but he still protects his young from hyenas. And the lioness who's child is killed by the lion and then who is forced to have that same lion's offspring can't possibly love that lion. Yet she still protects her offspring. It has NOTHING to do with love. love exists to support procreation, not the other way around. I thought you were a sociopath who would make the perfect leader? What happened, now love is more important than sex? Why wouldn't I be able to find a "purpose?" They would be my purpose. No, I would tell them because that is the prupose of all creatures. Sex without love is still enjoyable, and love without sex, when you die, is...nothing. Love is there to provoke us to have sex. Love is a hormonal emotion with 3 seperate stages, each with a different hormone active. Guess what the hormones are for? To make you want to have sex. Is it somehow less moral to have children "that way?" Why?
Islamsmylife, Wonderful question, I have been researching myself: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bernard.htm I think it is related mostly to hormones and nutrition. Remember, testosterone stimulates creativity.
You won't die if we perform a frontal lobotomy on you and if we cut off one of your arms and one of your legs. You won't even feel the pain. I'm sure you wouldn't mind. Bull, all bull. Sex is separate from love, but sex can be an expression of love and it is what binds couples together for years, allows them to produce and raise children. Sex is pleasant, y'know.
I'm not sure I agree with your theory that it's impossible to have friends of the opposite sex. You can be friends with whoever and whatever you want, some people are best friends with their dog or cat, it has nothing to do with gender or even species. Now, marriage on the other hand has something to do with gender, and whoever you end up married to, must be your best friend, and it does not matter if you love her or him or not, because emotion does not hold a relationship together, trust does. Most people trust their best friend more than they trust their "lover".
I never said I wouldnt mind. Where did you pull that from? Your hat? Any action can be an expression of love. Sex is not valueable as emotional currency anymore because people give it away like candy. It's now easier to get sex than to get love, it's easier to get sex than to find a wife or husband, it's easier to get sex than to form a friendship, sex is so easy to get that it's as easy as prostitution. There is no challenge in it, and the reward is just not good enough. Sex is only as important as you make it, and that ultimately depends on the type of woman or man you are with, if the man or woman is physically attractive, sex will be very important, if they arent physically attractive, sex will not be very important.
Sexual energy? Muhaha come on man. Sex is caused by horomones, there's nothing energy about it, no mysical energy I mean.
