youdontknowme
Thank you very much.
Have to admit I read Maslow in my early twenties, so I forget most part. Thanks for refreshing.

    youdontknowme

    I would not count reproduction as a physiological need of the individual.

    But it is a physiological need of the genes responsible for influencing our sexual behavior.

    "We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes."

    (The best proof I can offer of closet atheism is busting out the Richard Dawkins quotes.)

        WriterAlexis Is that not exactly what I said in the sentence immediately after the one I quoted?

        As for Dawkins, I quite like a lot of what he says on things like offense, gene-centric evolution and the role of religion in society, but I lost a little respect for him when he started drifting more and more into transphobia in the recent years. Sadly an all-too-common problem in Britain.

            I looked at a few Maslow pyramids again and actually found one that puts sex as a basic need on the lowest level. I remember that there was a discussion about this during my studies and I can agree with the result. The level at which sex is placed depends on the individual situation.

            I wouldn't describe sex as a basic need, it's eating, drinking, breathing (in my case, coffee). If sex was really a basic need in my case then I would be dead (which I obviously am not lol)

            However, if having children ensures existence, then you can put it on the first or second level. But depending on the personality of the person, it can even serve to achieve the highest level of self-realization

              Angelina Maslow classified sex as a physiological need not so much because you need it to survive, but because it derives from a bodily urge (as opposed to an intellectual pursuit).

                  Sex definitely is a want, not a need. You can lice happily without it, if that's your wish. You only need to want to do so, if you don't there's no reason to not have it, unless you're unmarried.

                    Max9

                    As @youdontknowme pointed out it’s considered a need because it’s a physiological urge.

                    Then everyone has his own priorities .

                        Milord Yes, but due to the bodily urge, which, to me, is not a need. It is a want. You also have an urgue to make a lot of cash, thus it's not a need to be millionaire (not considering inflation in europe rising such rapidly you probably need to be a millionaire to actually be able to afford a litre of petrol or a kilogram of meat)

                            Max9

                            Ok, but here we are talking about the ideas of Abraham Maslow and his tehory on hierarchy of needs.

                            Then sex is a physiological urge, and goes on the basic needs, while money ranks among psychological needs

                                Milord Well, I doubt this guy is almighty and, even thought he might be a know-it-all, I doubt he actually does so.

                                    Max9 Again, the idea that "physiological need" is somehow equivalent to "necessary for survival" is not a correct interpretation of its classification. Needs, in Maslow's theory, are classified as something that, when frustrated, can become overpowering. The fact that individuals can manage their sexual urges without satisfying them through orgasm and/or sexual intercourse is not called into dispute by that classification. He also considers clothing a physiological need and some remote tribes go through their entire lives with hardly any of that.

                                        Im suprised that this forum is full of psychologist and sexuologist. I never seen that much on one place 😀. Please can we stop polemise with real scientist and doctors? They have statistics, studies, and proofs. We have only ours conjectures.

                                        There is conformity that sex and sexuality is bodily need (and no reproduction - this is only the reason for it) and that masturbation or unwed sex is at least harmless.

                                        But yes somebody can dominate his sexual urge, somebody not. Somebody has religious problem with masturbation and etc (but it is only in his head, it will not ruin body or brain), somebody not.

                                          Kaja Please can we stop polemise with real scientist and doctors? They have statistics, studies, and proofs. We have only ours conjectures.

                                          As a real scientist, I'm not sure I'm fond of the idea of allowing social sciences to use that label. It's important to remember that nearly all non-trivial psychology and sociology research simply isn't reproducible.

                                              Spork Well I have to agree. There is a BIG difference between science and social science. I know it.

                                              But they still know more and have more datas that we have.

                                                Well the social sciences don't agree on that point.
                                                For example Alman posted in the specialist periodical "Psychology Today" that sex is not a general need but depends on the individual:
                                                https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-sociability/201304/how-important-is-sex

                                                Gleim even goes one step further and says Sex is a want, not a need in her article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/underneath-the-sheets/202005/whats-the-difference-between-sexual-needs-and-wants

                                                  Max9 have you read it? Because it's about sex in a relationship, not talking about sex from the perspective of the qualification as need or want. It is totally unrelated to the topic.

                                                      youdontknowme Maslow classified sex as a physiological need not so much because you need it to survive, but because it derives from a bodily urge (as opposed to an intellectual pursuit).

                                                      that's true, but i would never put it on the same level as eating and drinking, that was also the point of criticism during the discussion at the university. no eating = death, no drinking = death, no breathing = instant death. 4 1/2 years without sexual pleasure, but I'm still alive

                                                      Milord Ok, but here we are talking about the ideas of Abraham Maslow and his tehory on hierarchy of needs.

                                                      @Max9 did not refer to a post but replied to the original topic

                                                      youdontknowme Again, the idea that "physiological need" is somehow equivalent to "necessary for survival" is not a correct interpretation of its classification.

                                                      in theory it is also said that what is at the bottom must be there for what is at the top to exist. i had true love even without sex, that is somehow contradictory according to maslow