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).
Is sex a "want" or a "need"?
Also, sex, not procreation (even if in 1947 the only way to procreate is sex)
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.
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 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.
Max9
Of course not, but he is a very important psychologist
Here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
and here is his theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
- Edited
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.
- Edited
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
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
Milord I did. To quote her comparision - in the modern world we are often confronted with wants being presented to us as needs: for example owning a cellhpone. In her articlaäe, Gleim clearly distinguished between wants and needs amd as sex is not needed to live a psysically and psychologially healthy life, it is not a need. May it be in a marriage / relationship, or in a single life. If sex is not a need in a marriage, how can it be a need when being single? You contradict yourself with that statement
Max9 this is very dishonest from your part. You added the second article after.
In the fist one, the only one I read, the statement is that how much sex is important is in a relationship is “it depends”. Maslow on the other side intended the sexual pleasure in his basic aspect. And even for it the hierarchy is indicative and not mandatory. In a relationship it will stay on the third level (love and affection) among psychological needs. Anyway for you it is not important? I’m totally fine with this.
I mean it's not bad if someone enjoys sex. Nore is it bad that to some sex is an important part of their everyday life - but that importance does not base on the fact that you need it, but that you enjoy it. To others it is an important part of their life to go golfing everyday.
What is indeed classified as a need is social interaction because it us proven that complete social isolation causes mental issues. Sure, tgere are some people who lice at abandoned or lonely places like alaska, still they do have some very limited social interaction.
Sex, on the other hand, is no need as a lack of it doesn't cause mental or physical issues. For example take a look at the nuns and monks - some of them never had sex in their life, still they are being helathy. Also, there are people like Eunuchs who also can't experience sex, still they don't suffer illness due to the lack of sex.
To come to the point of trustworthy sources.
We shall not forget that psychology in its early days was still full of missinformation and fallacys. Only some centuries ago, they found out that lesbianism, for example, is not an issue of mental health that needs to be "healed" by a lobotomy that transforms a human into living vegetables.
Psychology has made huge improvements over the decades and even in the past few years some breaking discoveries have been made, for example in the field of the autism-spectre.
I would argue that different authors may just be defining "need" differently. In Maslow's case, it appears that he describes everything that may be required for a person to find fulfilment in life as a need, and then breaks it down by things like what causes that need, ordering that all in a rough hierarchy that is mostly organized by "if two of those needs are in a critical state, what would be the first one people worry about". But because only groups of needs are sorted and not individual needs, this leads to misinterpretations like "people who are starved for both love and sex will choose sex every time", which is clearly absurd. I mean, many people do, but that is generally considered dysfunctional behavior.
Meanwhile, other people define "need" as something essential for a person's survival and contrast it to "want" as a preference or enjoyment. Like so many philosophical debates, "want or need" ends up being less a question of science, and more one of language.