Yes, Tim... in agreement...as I took care to mention in my post, the grey matter on our brains does make it possible for us to sublimate or repress the libido...and of course, as you say, it also makes it possible for us to elevate the sexual experience beyond the realm of procreation.
You mention that hunger is a "mere need"... yet certainly, we can elevate hunger above it's biologic realm as well. We can prepare and enjoy delicious gourment meals that require "creativity and ingenuity," feeding our souls as well as our bodies... rather than just foraging through the wilderness (or refrigerator) for whatever is edible.
I do not think the fact that something can be elevated makes it a "want" and not a need. TRUE, we will die (as individuals) without food and water, and as individuals we can survive without sex. But we would die off as a species without sex, and I think that in and of itself qualifies it as a human need.
Someone wrote that only Food, Water, Oxygen, and Shelter are needs. Those may be the only BIOLOGICAL needs, but people have psychological needs as well. And without meeting basic psychological needs, such as for companionship, research shows longevity is shortened. Maslow's famous "hierarchy of NEEDS" lists many needs that are not just biological. In fact, the highest human need is for self actualization.
Also, BTW, depending on the climate, shelter is not necessarily needed for human survival... so if you expect your spouse to help maintain a roof over your head, and you live in a mild climate, make sure present the concept of repairing the roof as a "want" and not a "need." How silly!...
I'm really not real interested in the silly semantics of need vs. want... I just wanted to suggest that the need for sex is a huge part of our human biology, chemistry, and psychology... it's not some pathetic weakness to be overcome.
Didn't Maslow do a stage theory on moral reasoning as well?
"As soon as somebody falls in love, all the wits seem to dribble out the bottom of his head." Garion from Castle of Wizardry. And Jeff is obviously in love.
Quote: Someone wrote that only Food, Water, Oxygen, and Shelter are needs. Those may be the only BIOLOGICAL needs, but people have psychological needs as well. And without meeting basic psychological needs, such as for companionship, research shows longevity is shortened. Maslow's famous "hierarchy of NEEDS" lists many needs that are not just biological. In fact, the highest human need is for self actualization.
I am sure any of the other parents here will know that our first need is not so much for food as it is touch. A newborn's been well-fed for the past nine months, and they'll only get few drops of milk from mom for a day or so - but they'll certainly take a long time getting it! Snuggling up to the breast, rooting around to get mom's smell in their nose. Later a nursing baby will 'knead' mother's breast, grab her hair, face, as they're nursing (or taking a bottle)- there's definately a lot more than just feeding going on there.
A kid doesn't get that - they don't grow. Even long after nursing has stopped, a child needs to be held, touched by their parents.
Ok, I know that some of you are dealing with Ss that feel that touch is enough...so maybe that's not enough to prove that sex is actually a need, but i would certainly argue that touch, connection is. And isn't sex the ultimate in connection?
Does the neocortex really remove sex from the instinctual level - or does it allow us to think beyond our insticts, to the point that we can 'avoid' them? I don't know enough brain chemistry to even try to answer - so I'm asking any of you who do?
I really agree with your post. Neonates with compromised health can live or die, depending on how much touch they receive. I do consider touch a human need... again, of course it's possible to survive without touch, but I think that's very narrow criteria for "need," a criteria that doesn't help us understand that the human "need" for touch is a lot more important than, say, "wanting" a hot fudge sundae... although on some days that seems like a need too!
No, the neocortex does not "remove sex from the instinctual level"...as you say , it just allows us to think beyond that. A good analogy might be our "fight or flight" response. We all HAVE that response in various situations, but we can and do choose to ignore or overcome it, or channel it into more sophisticated responses.
Not sure if Maslow had a theory on moral reasoning or not. KOHLBERG is the probably the most well known moral reasoning theorist. It is a great theory, if you ever get a chance to read it.
You don't have to look far to find evidence that humans don't need sex. All I have to do is look at the other person in my bed.
Telling your spouse (and yourself) that you need sex puts a tremendous burden on him. It means that his natural lack of desire is hurting you. When he does have sex with you, he does it out of mercy. That feels special.
The other side of the coin is that if sex is necessary, then your husband's lack of sex drive is pathological - it is a medical condition which can be treated, and is something for which you bear no responsibility.
On the other hand, lack of DESIRE carries much more grave implications for your relationship. It's not that he doesn't want SEX, he doesn't want YOU. It's this seeming lack of interest in knowing me on a deep and meaningful level that keeps me awake at night.
For those nights when I feel sexual need, I make a date with Rosy Palms.
TB
"If we will be quiet and ready enough, we shall find compensation in every disappointment." Henry David Thoreau
I’m not sure if this is a hijack or not, but I have some general concerns about the needs vs. wants question. In fact, I would even go further and question the needs and wants themselves.
Let me start by saying that my position is that nobody needs sex. We may need it as a species, but as individuals, each and every one of us can exist just fine without it. Sex may be a prerequisite to having certain feelings, responses, mental attitudes, or what have you – but it’s not a need. So everything I say from here on out (in this post) is predicated upon my belief that though I want sex with my W, I don’t really need it. The other caveat is that I’m only into the second chapter of PM so I’m probably gridlocked, fused, and all sorts of other bad things, but just too ignorant to recognize it. So here goes.
As you all know, things have been somewhat better lately: W and I have ML five times in the past five weeks. That is a VAST improvement and an all-time record for us. Based on my own gut instinct and supporting recommendations from a good many of you, I have made no attempt to talk with her about this sudden huge upswing in LM. But this tremendous increase in frequency has me really examining the whole “want” issue. I’m very happy with the increase, but I want more. Once a week beats once every six months any way you look at it, but once every two or three days would be even better - and once a day, even better than that. But as they say, therein lies the rub.
If I’m brutally honest about what I want, it would be sex nearly every day with an enthusiastic partner. That sex would include her giving me a BJ at least once in a while. I know that I can’t really speak for my W, but based upon past performance (discounting the last few weeks), I would guess that she wants me to go down on her about once a month, she doesn’t really ever want to ML but she’s willing to do it occasionally just to please me, and I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the BJ is completely off the table. So how do we reconcile those different wants? When I add into the mix the fact that I want her to be happy and the fact that I really don’t want her to have to do something that she considers appalling (BJ) just to please me, things get so messy that I can’t even begin to make sense of them.
I know that Schnarch says that I should just state my wants and leave it at that, but while I can see some logic in that, it still seems wrong to me. It just doesn’t seem right to say in effect, “In order to make me happy, you have to do something that you find repugnant” and then just leave it at that. In the strictest sense, it is true, and it is disclosing, but it’s also completely selfish. Isn’t M about love and give and take and compromise? Ayn Rand may say that sex is inherently selfish, but I don’t see it that way. Sometimes sex is just f*cking, and I have no problem with that, but many times sex is something emotional/spiritual that’s shared between two people that builds and strengthens a bond between them. But sex isn’t the R. Unless your drives are perfectly in sync (which is probably pretty rare), it’s one of many areas where the give and take come into play.
If that hadn’t already complicated things enough, then some of you start dropping bombs like, “I will no longer accept mercy/duty/unenthusiastic sex”, or, “Why would you even want to have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you?” So let’s see, I want frequent, enthusiastic sex, I want my W to be happy, I want to be honest with her, I don’t want mercy/duty/unenthusiastic sex, I don’t want to pressure W to do anything that she finds truly abhorrent, I want her to want me (or to satisfy PM, I want her to give the appearance of wanting me), … Unfortunately, those aren’t all compatible. And I haven’t even gotten into my reactions to her reactions yet.
Let’s take the simple BJ as an example. I want one, and I know that she doesn’t want to give me one. I have two choices: forget the whole idea (bad), and try to influence her to do it (demanding, begging, stating “needs”, threatening D, or whatever). I think that this group would agree that assuming I chose option two, the only acceptable approach is the PM approach. OK, so I tell her that I need a BJ in order to [fill in the blank]. That puts the ball into her court; she can choose to not do it (bad), or she can choose to overcome her objections and give me a BJ (good). Ahh, but is it really good? I know that she doesn’t want to give me a BJ. It’s the equivalent of the coyote chewing his leg off to get out of the trap. It may be better than the alternative, but it’s still something that (s)he definitely doesn’t want to do. So now the ball’s back in my court. It may be one of my own making, but now I’m the one in the crucible with two unappealing choices: skip the BJ, or accept a coerced one from someone definitely not into it and in the process, know that by putting my own pleasure above her feelings, I’m directly causing discomfort/distress/unhappiness in someone I love and whom I deeply care about. So in that case, I’m left asking myself how badly I really want that BJ. When I put it that way, I’m not sure the BJ is worth it.
I love Kohlbergs theory - have a copy in my night stand - no really!
"As soon as somebody falls in love, all the wits seem to dribble out the bottom of his head." Garion from Castle of Wizardry. And Jeff is obviously in love.
I'm going to give you a practical answer. You know that your W doesn't want to give you a blow-job. She would be overwhelmed by this request. I know that my daughter doesn't want to clean her bedroom. She would be overwhelmed by the request. The way I typically get her to do it is by breaking up one big job into a lot of little jobs. Throughout the day, I'll say things like "Now go upstairs and bring down 20 items of laundry" or "First bring to the kitchen anything that might go rotten.". Eventually by the end of the day we get to the part where she is proud to let me inspect her room.
If I were you, I would apply PM principles with the goal of getting a blow-job, but I would do it in "baby steps" (I'm sure all Bill Murray fans are laughing to themselves). First tackle her general penile revulsion. Figure out how to make it her friend. For instance, if you are at all clownish, you could make it talk to her or you could make her feel sorry for it, if you demonstrate how easily it can be hurt or if she doesn't like the looks of it, you could see if she might find it more appealing if she touched it with her eyes closed. Next you could see if you could just get her to kiss nearby areas like your belly or your thighs. Eventually you could convince her to kiss it and then perhaps to kiss it while you jack-off. From there you could progress to just sucking, licking the head and not swallowing and then either a full blown blow-job without the swallow or just a headjob with the swallow depending on which is least appealing to her. Hopefully this will lead to a completely successful confident blowjob someday. Please don't be insulted if I offer one bit of advice for you. The number one absolute no-no any guy can do in bed is to put your hand on the back of a woman's head when she is giving you head. As far as I know, all women HATE this.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
It sounds to me that a BJ is more than just a fantasy/desire of yours. Maybe it's a symbol of your SSM (like doggie style is for me). IOW, you'll never be completely satisfied with your sex life until the "forbidden fruit tree" is cut down.
My reason goes farther than just a fantasy position, it's about feeling loved. As long as my W is unwilling to try to please me by denying what she knows I want, I'm left to conclude that her desires are more important to her than mine and her fears are more important than me/us. Ironically, I've been accused throughout our M of "conditional love" because I wouldn't accept her saying NO as often as she wanted to as OK. (I had to accept it, but I'd be mad about it.)
(Corri will probably scream at the idea of a W having to "prove" her love by a BJ or sexual position. She would be wise to wait for a day that's not dark and grey to pick a fight, however. )
Mike - wondering if I'll ever sing "Zippety-Do-Dah" again
)