CMV: Sex is not a need

What do you guys think? I've found a lot of people have different views on this.

Personally, I don't think it is, both biologically (except for some kind of male sexual release for sperm and reproduction purposes) and psychologically.

If it's the case that it is; it might have implications pertaining to gender issues, especially those having to do with incels and potentially red-pillers.

If sex is a need, then incels might (I don't personally agree) have some new arguments.

If it isn't then the opposite might hold true.

Personally, I agree with most radical feminists' viewpoints (I'm male) on this; that it isn't and the implications tend to benefit radical feminist arguments (such as their views on porn, sex work, male self-control, systematic/cultural treatment of women as sexual objects, etc), vs. liberal/SJW feminist and traditional gendered/red-pill arguments. (It's usually liberal vs tradition in these arguments, but Radical/Marxist Feminism makes up a third viewpoint I think)

My reasoning for it not being necessary are these:

It is certainty not necessary to individual survival, so we can rule that out. Therefore, the argument must be about it's necessity to one's own happiness or emotional self.

Firstly, I have my doubts that my happiness and emotional regulation depends on external pleasures. (despite being a radical feminist, I agree with much of no-fap and Stoicism, something I know red-pillers and traditionalists tend to agree with as well) The only non-survival externals I believe that benefit are love (not romantic love), kindness, respect, and knowledge. Romantic and sexual relationships are not necessary, but some form of "platonic" might be, whether in family, such as siblings or cousins, or good friends. I believe therapeutic relationships are definitely necessary.

(A good discussion question to ask; is everyone the same? Or do some people have these needs while other's don't? What are the implications of this?)

Secondly, this has implications. If sex is a necessity, it makes life much more of a competition; one that is based on superficial attributes. However, it might do the opposite. With this necessity in mind, perhaps we as a society can become less superficial and instead more loving and kind. There is also a third implication pertaining to incels. Incels often discuss the negative effects of being involuntary celibates. Though I do not agree; perhaps they hold some truth?

If sex isn't a necessity, then life is much different. No longer should society be based around these sexual desires, but rather around what is truly good (subjective opinion). This means that many issues for traditionalists, progressives, incels, feminists, etc can be solved.

Thirdly, about reproduction. Many red-pillars and traditionalists argue that while sex may not be a necessity, marriage and raising a child is. I don't personally agree with that argument (and the idea that a healthy sex life is necessary in a marriage), I won't make an argument with it in a post (though I might in the comments if someone mentions it), but I will say that while sex purely for reproduction purposes (let's exclude artificial insemination and adoption for now) is necessary, this is much different than the idea of a "health sex life", in which your mental health and happiness depends on the sex itself and it's continuation, rather than the reproduction it may lead to.

In conclusion, sex is not necessary.

Though I made an argument, this is much more intended as a discussion rather than a debate towards my argument. However, I encourage debate and will be happy to debate with you myself! Think of it as a discussion/debate.

I am interested in hearing what you guys think!