Sex is a need, but not a right & never should be.

Mrs_Drgree · 2020-12-29T10:31:20+00:00

[removed]

Gravel_Roads · 2020-12-29T10:27:42+00:00

I mean, it's a "need" in that humans "need" social stimulation+physical intimacy to be 100% happy (and by "need", we are "biologically motivated to seek it out"; not "need" as in "must, or perish.") It's obviously not needed "to survive". You won't die without it. You'll just be less happy.

Other things we similarly "need" to be 100% happy: shoes, roads, maps, cell phones, financial stability, affordable health care, heating, beds, hair cuts, towels, trash cans, plates/bowls/silverware...

I will say: You can also get social stimulation+physical intimacy from other places, so "sex" is less of a need than "people who care about you and regularly touch you in healthy ways". People who hug their friends and cuddle their pets are getting (albeit) smaller doses of the exact same brain chemicals. I've found that people who struggle to be affectionate in non-platonic ways also struggle with being intimate during sex.

If someone can't enjoy platonic touch, sexual touch isn't going to magically cure them into being a warm affectionate person who takes pleasure in spending time with people.

once again: there's a reason sex workers don't "solve" this need.

NinjaOfTheSouth · 2020-12-29T13:36:46+00:00

Sex is not a need, have you seen how many posts or commments women have made about sex being a deal to them, it’s more of a choice. Saying something is a need, is saying I need food to eat, water to drink, air to breath. Saying I need sex, is grammeral incorrect, nobody needs sex. Like let’s be real here, the only reason this post was made cause the other post made an logical statement about contraceptives.

mechanical_elves · 2020-12-29T15:58:47+00:00

That's really all it is, a semantic discussion.

At first the cliche was that sex is not a need (obviously, directed at men). Then someone raised a pretty strong objection. Now it's "fine then, sex is a need but not a right!". Basically reframing the semantics however possible to preserve your own "needs" met by society, while still refusing to acknowledge how the needs of others will be met by society, if at all.

I'm not even in the "sex is a need" camp but it's clear to see most PPD women are engaging in the most blatant self-serving wordplay at this point.

DevilishRogue · 2020-12-29T16:10:43+00:00

There are countries in Europe (looking at you Netherlands) where the severely disabled can get state support vouchers to use the services of prostitutes because they regard sex as a human right:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/7945785/Councils-pay-for-prostitutes-for-the-disabled.html

https://dutchreview.com/culture/love-dating/sex-care-in-the-netherlands-helping-the-disabled-find-intimacy/

https://www.mic.com/articles/85201/the-surprising-way-the-netherlands-is-helping-its-disabled-have-sex

That doesn't seem so bad to me.

2020-12-29T14:28:56+00:00

[removed]

Jip_Jaap_Stam · 2020-12-29T18:06:47+00:00

So, no one has a right to sex. Fair enough. But, you posit, free birth control, which makes sex easier and is a net benefit to society, should be a right. Why? It has disadvantages, like cost and encouraging feckless behaviour. But the positives outweigh the negatives.

Ergo, no one has a right to good health. But free gymnasia, which make good health easier and are a net benefit to society, should be a right. Sure, they'd cost taxpayers money and take up space, but one could argue that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Also, no one has a right to conversation with others. But free telephones, which make conversations with others easier and are a net benefit to society, should be a right. Sure, they'd cost taxpayers money, but one could argue that the positives outweigh the negatives.

And no one has a right to travel across country and see family. But free transport, which makes travel easier and is a net benefit to society, should be a right. Sure, it'd cost taxpayers money, and pollution would increase, but one could argue that the positives outweigh the negatives.

And no one has a right to a pleasant living environment. But free trees, which make living environments more pleasant and are net benefit to society, should be a right. Sure, they'd cost taxpayers money, and they might not be practical in some locations, but one could argue that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Finally, no one has a right to sex. But free, legal prostitution, which makes sex available to all irrespective of deformity or disability and is therefore a net benefit to society, should be a right. Sure, it'd cost taxpayers money, and conservative, religious types would disapprove, but one could argue that the positives outweigh the negatives.

All of the above examples are nonsensical. Because if something is not a right – and I agree that sex should not be viewed as such – then its facilitation should not be a right either.

2020-12-29T18:27:54+00:00

I disagree here, because the way you are viewing it is inherently dishonest.

Something can't be a need, and having be done about it. We would never say food or medicine is a need, and not find ways to make it easier for people to obtain food or medicine. It's ridiculous.

Only a very very small subset of the population will not. It would be a detriment to society if the laws were bent or changed to benefit such individuals.

Then you do not actually view sex as a need here. If no laws or nothing is done, it's not being viewed as a need in any practical way. The very idea you believe it's a detriment means you don't really view it as a need to begin with.

as you are not allowed to superimpose your needs over others bodily autonomy thus harming them in the process.

You don't need to violate bodily autonomy , you can legalize prostitution, have government run brothels , or sex therapists from the government, or classes to teach men how to be more attractive.

abaxeron · 2020-12-29T13:02:40+00:00

you are not allowed to superimpose your needs over others bodily autonomy thus harming them in the process

Except when we're talking men and their tax money spent on women who betrayed them. And male babies and their foreskins turned into beauty products. And male adults and their ownership of their own sperm. And male conscripts, and inmates used as firefighters or unsupervised medical test subjects, and their ownership of their own lives and health. And late-stage pregnancy fetuses and newborns poisoned with alcohol and drugs by their pregnant or breastfeeding mothers.

You are very much allowed to superimpose your needs and wants over others' bodily autonomy, as long as vaginas aren't involved. And every woman who says "bodily autonomy" means only and exclusively "vagina autonomy", and the very next second goes on to overconsume public services for herself, wasting taxpayer money that some guy, somewhere, killed himself over.

It would be a detriment to society if the laws were bent or changed to benefit such individuals.

It was a detriment to society when laws got bent to benefit women who hate men over them and their families, and yet here we are. Laws are put in place to win votes and reelections. Majority of active voters are [fill the blank].

these things vastly benefit society far more than the money being spent on them is worth

Who ran the comparison? You?

funlightmandarin · 2020-12-29T12:41:58+00:00

Sex is not a need, but human connection is. Knowing that someone out there wants you around. Knowing you're wanted (sexually and non-sexually) by others. Humans are social animals after all.

For men who maybe have no close, intimate friendships with their own gender, sex is maybe the closest they get to this human connection. Widowers are 10 times more likely to remarry (2006 numbers) than widows, even though widows outnumber widowers greatly. For men who aren't successful with the opposite sex and don't have close, intimate friendships, life is surely lonely. Loneliness poses the same risk for heart disease as smoking, so it does have a detrimental, physical effect on the body.

But, sex socialism isn't the answer, you can't buy connection. I'm sure there's incels in the Netherlands and Germany.

I say it: we need more bromances.

12112019 · 2020-12-29T14:01:51+00:00

access to contraceptives & abortions ect

You have no right what's so ever to free or subsidized access to contraceptives and abortions, since when is this regarded as a basic human right?

TheBookOfSeil · 2020-12-29T10:27:22+00:00

Sex is not a need. A need would be something integral and directly necessary for an individual's survival. We need to breathe. We need food and water. We need a certain type of environment or shelter from harsh environments. If we dont have these things, we will die rather quickly - some quicker than others.

Someone can live a full life and die in old age without ever having sex. Its pretty clear that sex is not a need. It is a want/desire, and wanting something really bad "or else ________" does not change a want into a need.

HODL_monk · 2020-12-29T10:14:21+00:00

Nor should the laws be bent to punish those who willingly participate in such acts at the monetary cost of others (taxes that pay for our social security, sex Ed in school, access to contraceptives & abortions ect) as these things vastly benefit society far more than the money being spent on them is worth.

If sex is not a right, than it's sex havers own problem and i have no interest in paying for other’s safe pleasure, their kid's education, social security of strangers, those have no benefit for me. That's the highest sense of entitlement and narcissism i have ever seen.

A safe, consensual, sex with no negative consequences is a need but not a right & never should be as long as i others paying for it.

Go fund yourself.

MasterTeacher123 · 2020-12-29T11:15:44+00:00

You have a right to have your Individual and private property rights respected. No one should be allowed to punch you in the face or take your shit, that’s it. That should be the limit of your “rights”.

I don’t know anyone who argue sex is a “right” so I’m trying to figure out where your coming from. What “laws” are people arguing should be bent for people?

SonicBackScratcher · 2020-12-29T15:12:55+00:00

others bodily autonomy thus harming them in the process.

Now I agree with you but counterpoint would be something like socialized medicine. You are demanding people do things for you as a right, in this case health care.

Logically if you can say health care is a right then you can say sex is too, provided by paid people just like a doctor or nurse is.

Now I think socialized medicine is stupid too, especially for innovation, but once you start saying privileges are rights, everything is a right.

Spyro7x3 · 2020-12-29T17:53:44+00:00

I don’t think anyone disagrees

It’s just that years ago bloops argues that sex is a want or a luxury

portrayalofdeath · 2020-12-29T18:03:26+00:00

[deleted]

Dogecoin_trader · 2020-12-29T18:28:10+00:00

Nor should the laws be bent to punish those who willingly participate in such acts at the monetary cost of others (taxes that pay for our social security, sex Ed in school, access to contraceptives & abortions ect) as these things vastly benefit society far more than the money being spent on them is worth.

Might as well defund all mental health care with that logic, because thats what it would effectively be, helping depressed and lonely people.
Also, why should my tax money be spent on some woman who wasnt smart enough to use contraception and now wants to kill her child, or free contraceptives for people who want to fuck? These things carry as much benefits as they do drawbacks.

W0lf2033 · 2020-12-29T18:56:57+00:00

I think a simple way to solve this is to legalize prostitution and unionize it. sex workers already exist just don’t punish people for accessing it. So even those who are unable to have a caring and loving partner can pay for some form of intimacy to alleviate their “need”. In many countries where it is legal it’s very affordable and widely used.

infernalwretch · 2020-12-29T21:55:20+00:00

Have people actually argued that sex should be a right? How do they propose this “right” to be implemented?

TheJim66 · 2020-12-29T10:27:28+00:00

Uhm yeah but who is claiming otherwise?

But not on par with basic human rights, as you are not allowed to superimpose your needs over others bodily autonomy thus harming them in the process.

You could have society address the need without super imposing yourself over anyone's bodily autonomy. I think Netherlands has done it successfully.

AutoModerator · 2020-12-29T09:38:07+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

daproest1 · 2020-12-29T11:50:21+00:00

I don’t get it. Is this post anti-rape and pro-prostitution? Because that’s what it sounds like. And I agree. Pretty common knowledge that sex isn’t a right. If it were, Lamborghini dealerships probably wouldn’t exist.

Extremely__Moderate · 2020-12-29T15:34:59+00:00

Should access to psychological care be a need or a right?

What about a dietician?

What a about a physical therapist?

What about a prostitute?

no_value_male · 2020-12-29T17:42:47+00:00

Agreed. However, for males not getting sexual attention leads to rapidly deteriorating mental health situations (partly boosted by societies abolute hatred for sexless loser males). Its not the sex part thats damaging, its the "you are a worthless waste of oxygen that should not exist" part.

I think a good compromise is offering free sex-drive blockers for males or something. I know I would swallow a whole bottle of that stuff immediately lmao.

Mattcwu · 2020-12-29T17:48:37+00:00

All needs are rights. To disagree with that is cruel and oppressive.

Sentientbeingofvenus · 2020-12-29T19:26:43+00:00

https://www.naumof.com/single-post/2017/05/22/why-maslow-s-hierarchy-of-needs-is-dead-wrong written by a man

impressmain7 · 2020-12-29T21:09:03+00:00

Like were you expecting people to disagree with you? Because I totally agree that sex is not a right. Like with other areas of life, its on men to use their own agency to get what they want from women.

DissonanceBadger · 2020-12-29T21:12:40+00:00

I’m a bit confused about all the threads about sex as a need recently. They all seem to have an underlying premise that need implies entitlement. Just because something is a need, doesn’t mean society has to provide it to you somehow. You still need to buy your food, it’s not handed out to you for free just because sustenance is a basic need.

Reisiluu · 2020-12-29T22:34:59+00:00

Sex isn't a need, otherwise making it illegal for underage teens to have sex would be considered abusive and wrong.

801735 · 2020-12-29T22:46:14+00:00

Most individuals will experience sex with willing & caring partners. Only a very very small subset of the population will not.

Wait, I thought that every 4 out of 1.5 women gets raped or some silly stat like that. It has been repeatedly pointed out militantly not long ago.

Nor should the laws be bent to punish those who willingly participate in such acts at the monetary cost of others (taxes that pay for our social security, sex Ed in school, access to contraceptives & abortions ect) as these things vastly benefit society far more than the money being spent on them is worth.

Will never happen, because interests are just 2 strong behind that. If it was possible/not profitable enough, it'd be legalized completely decades ago, practically ALL feminists would be pushing for it.

I wonder how many jobs exist only because of this kind of laws?

spacechicken1990 · 2020-12-30T03:26:29+00:00

It's not a need, noone has died without sex.

methamphetamile · 2020-12-29T09:47:47+00:00

Sex is most definitely not a need. Staying abstinent for your entire life is not detrimental to your health in any way and does not prevent you from living normally.

Mimoxs · 2020-12-29T10:43:33+00:00

A need is something you will die without. You will not shrivel up and die without sex.

If it's such a need, explain how there are people who do not enjoy it and do not want it at all and avoid it. Asexuality is a whole orientation.

Plenty of non asexual persons have gone without their entire lives, and been just fine in every way. It was fairly common in certain eras of history.

Catholic priests/nuns and other dedicated religious persons go without sex with no issues their whole lives.

LillthOfBabylon · 2020-12-29T10:02:58+00:00

Sex is not a need because most men refuse to pay for hookers. And dont give me that whole "it's illegal thing" excuse, because there are plenty of places with legal hookers. If it's a need, you're willing to pay any price for it.

But not on par with basic human rights,

More reasons to believe it's not a need. People will be charitable and freely give you your needs out of pity. 99.99999% of women are disgusted at men demanding pity sex.

spacechicken1990 · 2020-12-29T10:18:36+00:00

[removed]

BlackPorcelainDoll · 2020-12-29T15:05:36+00:00

There is some confusion with psychological needs and desires & "basic needs" (). The latter means languish if you do not have them satisfied, but the former means increased harm via psychological distress on the agent. The latter is a must care or an ought with no interesting axiology, while the former cry for help that warrants attention but not a 'must' to be attentive towards, dispensable from survival.

Although not relevant to the thread, the arguments of these kind are not related to law or jurisprudence directly, but to moral psychology and mostly negative and positive ethics — the workaround seems to making a pill ideology that speaks amorally a matter of moral psychology and the people here continue to moralize discussions. We have one side pushing negative utilitarian ethics and the other side pushing positive ethics - the other without considering that these two are dualistic in nature. What nets harm to deny or deprivation is objective by pov-invariant (natural environment, public safety, public health, public shelters, social networks) e.g. contraceptive, birth control, abortions, etc responses - but happiness is not (insane Utopian/Dystopian pipedreams).

The use of "need for sex" in the context of this sub aside from semantic giggly-goop (survival being confused with flourishing - indispensable species biological drive to procreate/have sex for the species to flourish vs individuals psychological needs to have sex which vary from person/person) - is it always framed as a psychological needs and desires inform ethics as constraint satisfactions, but psychological needs and desires are not the only constraints that inform ethics because moral reasoning is neither inductive or deductive, but a matter of constraint satisfaction in distinguishable from it's constraint condition. In other words, the latter is scaled in variable and complexity to what individual agent operates, while the former is not. One is a matter of public health large-scale ethics and the other is subjectively gauged by the agent, meaning yin/yang not polar opposites. Explaining the push from males and the resistance from females.

The response from women is mostly a reaction to bad faith arguments about conflation of attaining sex and attempts to make justifications to reduce the woman's agency in order to appease theirs, and making lack of sex arguments such as 'if I can't get sex, I'll remove your birth control' - which makes no sense whatsoever because it leaves an implication that there is some magical right to procreate or fuck that is being frustrated or removed by female selectiveness. The "contraceptives, birth control, abstinence" argument increases net harm indistinguishable from the psychological need not being fulfilled to have sex.

Another bad faith argument in the US is "prostitution should be legalized to get-back at women," rather than legalized to alleviate the suffering of males that have no access to sex that socialized women to fear men that go to prostitutes, as if it is some detrimental thing to socially destigmatize prostitution, but this is dishonest it creates an inflated hysteria or instills fear based off delusions of inadequacy of limp-wrists to not satisfy their 'psychological needs' for sex with available sex outlets, as men have always been doing.

QuenchlessGato · 2020-12-29T10:20:13+00:00

Would you be fine with tax-paid monetary aid for those who can' satisfy this need and thus don't benefit from the tax-paid contraceptives, abortions, etc.?

Sabrine_Crystal_1992 · 2020-12-29T16:11:12+00:00

I don't think sex is a need because you can live without it and there are people who feel no sexual desire. They are called asexuals. However you feel the need to talk to someone and know new people unless if you have autism or something. Nobody can live without interacting with other person.

SaBahRub · 2020-12-29T16:21:00+00:00

Need, want; it’s irrelevant as long as sex involves another person

That’s the only part of this issue that matters

I don’t know why people can’t wrap their heads around it. “Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins” yadda yadda yadda

Yah, you may “need” that liver inside another person’s body to live — you still can’t force them to give to you even if you will die without it

This-is-BS · 2020-12-29T16:23:12+00:00

No, sex is just a desire. A need would be something you die if you don't get.

Plopolok · 2020-12-29T11:52:17+00:00

Are there really people who want a law making it mandatory to give sex to incels? I keep reading that it would be unacceptable, and yes of course it would be, why are we even discussing that?

If you've read it somewhere: 1) it's weird that mods haven't yet removed it, report; and 2) chill out, the guy was probably not actually serious and in any case it just won't happen.

801735 · 2020-12-29T14:03:12+00:00

Sex is a need, but not a right & never should be.

What about monosex, you know, manual gear control, even if roboassisted? LOL

moneygang4life · 2020-12-29T14:53:53+00:00

Ok so u feel bad for incels then? And you think something should be done to help them out?

SeemedGood · 2020-12-29T19:27:44+00:00

The issue at heart here is not just about sex. Fundamentally it’s about positive rights versus negative rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)

Generally the establishment of positive rights for one group will require the violation of the negative rights of another. It is therefore almost impossible to establish positive rights which are logically consistent with just principles.

Bottom line: Yes, we don’t have a right to sex for the same reasons that we don’t have a right to healthcare, or food, or housing, or a “fair wage,” or free birth control, or a universal basic income, or sex ed, or social security, et cetera.

mae1995111 · 2020-12-29T23:39:23+00:00

Most individuals will experience sex with willing & caring partners. Only a very very small subset of the population will not.

This is just not true. Hardly any men experience this. Most women settle with the best guy they can get; that by definition means that if they had the choice they would be with a man they perceive to be better.

This is in contrast to how males feel. Once they fall in love, they don't really want to be with anyone else.

Atlas__B__Shruggin · 2020-12-29T12:40:43+00:00

Laws are in place to uphold human rights for the good of society and because of this they benefit the majority not the few.

yeh i dont know where you all got this disgusting society spook from, but laws in the US are based on natural rights, not "human rights" and they exist to protect the individual, not benefit "muh societee"

throw-away-1709 · 2020-12-29T14:23:32+00:00

Commitment is a need but not a right.

Monogamy is a need but not a right.

Marriage is a need (4 women) but not a right.

....see the problem?

First the sex fails. Then the commitment fails. Then the relation fails.

So it is not a right but a necessity.

moneygang4life · 2020-12-29T14:41:39+00:00

The average man is struggling to get sex today i think your missing this point

AntiSocialPartygoer · 2020-12-29T15:37:42+00:00

As much as I agree with this "sex is not a right" motto, I support that decision of a random country (probably Netherlands) of making handicapped men getting escorts from the pocket of government.

Men losing virginity to escorts when they reach 18yo is a social convention that exists just because male virginity is a much bigger hindrance to have sex than female virginity.

If male virginity was not an obstacle for having sex, straight men wouldn't be losing their virginity to escorts. I live in a country where female teenagers literally lose their virginity in ages like 14/15. But do male teenagers have this ease about getting sex? Never.

Title	Sex is a need, but not a right & never should be.
Author	spacechicken1990
Upvotes	110
Comments	368
Date	December 29, 2020 9:38 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/kmbapc/sex_is_a_need_but_not_a_right_never_should_be/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/sex-is-a-need-but-not-a-right-never-should-be.354438 https://theredarchive.com/post/354438

Comments