Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is not a scientific fact that people need sex, except for procreation.
Other than for procreation people want sex, they don't need sex.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What "if" you are wrong
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Other than for procreation people want sex, they don't need sex.
Yes, assuming that no harm comes from abstinence, a reasonable assumption in somebody who has no libido.
But remember, need has at least two meanings. We need things like companionship and sex if loneliness and abstinence leave us feeling unhappy or unfulfilled means in a different sense than we need water and oxygen. As your Maslow pyramid suggests, there are levels of "need" in this first sense above the base (physical needs), and we vary regarding what we need to feel complete. Not everybody desires self-respect or the respect of others, for example, but for those who do, not having them degrades the experience of life. What we need to survive (second meaning above) and what we need to thrive (first meaning) are different lists.
And right now, I'd say that you are in an argument caused by equivocation. You're using different definitions of need. Nobody needs sex to survive, and people with no libido get no direct benefit from sex unless it's to keep a partner happy or to procreate (I'm leaving out sex for hire and sex to manipulate people but those would be benefits of sex to some), but those with a healthy sex drive DO need sex to feel complete.
Do you consider masturbation sex? I ask because there are apparently health benefits from Masturbation: Facts & Benefits:
"Studies of male masturbation have shown it’s healthy to masturbate and even beneficial for long-term health. One study suggested that people assigned male at birth (AMAB) who ejaculate frequently may have a lower risk of prostate cancer. Ejaculating often may prevent the buildup of cancer-causing agents in your prostate gland."
I assume that for a man, sex a few times a day would substitute for masturbation, since the benefit seems to be from ejaculation.
If having unforced sex is bad for your mental health, I'd say that you already have mental health problems.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
What harm can come from abstinence if one has no desire for sex?
That's true. And some of us need a religion or at least a connection to God to feel happy and fulfilled. I would never tell someone they need that if they don't want it so I would appreciate it if people did not shove sex down my throat. It is very disrespectful.
Some of us do not need the companionship of another person, and even if we do some people do not want to have sex in a relationship.
Why should we have sex if we don't want to?
As a Baha'i, I will never have sex out of wedlock, and what that means is that I will probably never get married again, since men expect sex when they are dating. I am not the only Baha'i who faces this issue, a thread was recently posted about this on a Baha'i forum. But even if I got married I 'might not' want sex, so I have decided that I would rather remain single than forced to have sex when I don't want sex.
You are correct in saying that people with no libido get no direct benefit from sex unless it's to keep a partner happy or to procreate. I have neither situation.
If you are implying that lack of sexual desire is not healthy I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Lack of a sex drive is perfectly normal for a woman after a certain age owing to the hormonal changes, and there is nothing unhealthy about it.
But even if people have a sex drive, not all people with sex drive need sex to feel complete. Some people have more important things to do than pursue physical pleasure. Except for procreation, there is no other reason for people to have sex except for physical pleasure. To try to pretend sex is 'necessary' for partner bonding is just an excuse to have sex, since partners can bond without sex.
Yes, I consider masturbation sex.
Prostate cancer is one aspect of physical health, and of course masturbation only benefits physical health, not spiritual health.
Masturbation is not good for spiritual health, according to my religion.
One has a mental health problem because they don't want sex?
When did you become a mental health counselor? No counselor of mine ever said that.
It is bad for one's mental health to do what they have no desire to do, and for some people that includes sex.
Why should people have sex if (a) they have no partner and (b) they have no desire for sex?
Last edited:
None that I know of. Did you think I meant otherwise? My words were, "assuming that no harm comes from abstinence, a reasonable assumption in somebody who has no libido." That says that I consider it likely that abstinence because of an absence of a sex drive has no downside. Abstinence in the presence of a sex drive for religious reasons (ask the priests) or involuntarily (ask the incels) often does, however.
I haven't seen that here on RF. I've only seen people arguing that sex can be physically and psychologically beneficial as well as pleasurable. I haven't seen anybody encouraging you to have sex you don't want.
Also, probably not the best way to express that sentiment.
No, I am not. Lack of sex in the presence of a libido might be unhealthy as discussed above, and abstinence because of a fear of sex might be unhealthy, but lack of sex for lack of a libido is not.
That's not correct. There are psychological benefits as well. And probably physical benefits as we discussed including the benefit of the exercise.
I think you've changed what was said to you. It's not about what's necessary. It's about what makes life better. Yes, I can bond with my sister without sex, but the emotional bond with my wife is greater than with my sister because of a sexual relationship.
That's also not what I wrote, which was, "If having unforced sex is bad for your mental health, I'd say that you already have mental health problems." I'm thinking of a person consenting to legal sex who has mental health problems because of it. If that's harmful rather than neutral or at worst an inconvenience, then something's wrong.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I hoped you'd know what I meant by what I said. I meant that people are pushing sex as 'necessary' in general, not necessarily directed at me.
I knew that and I said it on purpose, as a pun.
I feel exactly as I expressed it, like a man is trying to well...... you know what I mean.
Okay, fair enough.
I agree that there might be psychological benefits, but there might also be psychological drawbacks, and this all depends upon the person.
There are many other ways to get exercise, ones that have no strings attached.
Better for who? Sex does not make life better for everyone. I can speak from having an extensive amount of experience with and without sex.
I was never happier than the day I decided I no longer wanted sex, and I never looked back. I never want to go back to that prison again.
The emotional bond is greater for you because of the sexual relationship, but the bond is not greater for everyone for that reason.
To be fair, the bond is probably greater for most married couples because of the sexual relationship, but not for everyone. Older married couples who no longer have sex are still bonded in their love.
The bond I had with my husband was greater because we had a bond based upon our shared Baha'i beliefs. That is what held us together through thick and thin, not sex. When we were first married and for a long time afterwards our bond was only physical because it was based upon sex, since back then I was a Baha'i in name only. Only much later did I become a serious Baha'i, as he had been all along, and then our bond was greater than when we were having sex.
Okay, fair enough.
OK, but I haven't seen that. When somebody is advocating for another to have sex they don't want, it's generally to get sex for themselves. People are telling you that it's necessary for them. It sounds to me like you're better off without sex given your comment, "I was never happier than the day I decided I no longer wanted sex, and I never looked back. I never want to go back to that prison again"
The impression I got from your writing is that the men you've encountered required sex before marriage, but that they accepted your no answer and looked elsewhere.
I know of no drawbacks to healthy, consensual sex unless you want to talk about betrayal, STD, unwanted pregnancies, death from auto-asphyxiation and other things that don't come from sex per se but rather, from unsafe sex or sex behind somebody's back - like one's own significant other that expects fidelity, or sex with a married person whose spouse finds out. One can be killed by a jealous husband.
Better for whomever likes life better with sex than without it.
Yes, that's what I said. Didn't you say something similar: "When we were first married and for a long time afterwards our bond was only physical because it was based upon sex." I'll bet that your bond was based in more than that, but if sex made you closer, your connection was in part because of that sex.
Yes, they are, assuming they still like and respect one another, which isn't always the case. In my case, much of it is based in shared values, mutual respect, and a long history of shared experiences. If sex disappeared, we would still have all of that.
Speaking of which, I've probably told you that we had a band together for years. Recently, my wife has begun uploading our recordings to YouTube and adding stock video footage to them, which we enjoy every evening on our terrace. She's the bass player, I play lead electric guitar, a third person is on rhythm guitar, and the drumming is digitally synthesized. Maybe you'd like to hear an example. Both of us are singing this, me during the verses and both of us during the choruses. This a song written by Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead and his chief lyricist Robert Hunter:
Yes, I'm sure it was, but I can't help but believe that if you both enjoyed sex, your sex life would have made your lives even better.
It's OK that you don't like, want, or have sex, but for those couples who do, they're happier together with it than without it.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
They have been advocating for sex, and not only for themselves. They have been telling me that sex is 'generally necessary' for everyone in order to be happy and psychologically well-adjusted.
Yes, that's true.
Yes, that is what has happened.
If you mean there are no drawbacks to sex in marriage I agree with that, and most Baha'is would also agree with that. The Baha'i Faith position says that is the right of every individual to express the sex instinct within marriage.
“The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá'ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.”
Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File, pp. 364-365
I already know your position on consensual sex out of wedlock. I would not expect you to have a religious view unless you were religious.
Yes, our bond was based in more than sex, our connection was in part because of that sex, and sex made us closer.
Thanks, that's pretty cool. I like music but I have never played any instruments or did any singing. A man I met on a dating site who I have been messaging for over a year plays the guitar and the harmonica and sings karaoke. He is a believer but not religious, which I like. He was raised as a Christian, dropped out, and we have shared attitudes about Christianity. It's too bad he lives in a distant state and neither one is willing to move, but he is a good friend and confidant.
It was good while it lasted and now I cannot even remember what exactly what happened that caused it to come to a halt. All I can remember is that there was a rift in the marriage because I wanted him to get a better job so I could pursue a new career and he refused to get a better job, so I was angry with him, and I did not feel like being close after that. It was sometime after that when I decided I did not want sex anymore for other reasons.
I am sure they are, and I might be happy with it again if I ever got married again. I have not ruled out having sex again if I got married, but the chances of my marrying again are slim to none, not because I won't have sex but because of other compatibility and lifestyle issues. As I always say, it would be an act of God if I ever married again. What I am saying is that it would be fate, thus God's will, but it would also a miracle! It certainly won't be because I went looking and found a man on a dating site.
If you want to know more about Ray Epps, I recommend to watch this:
Who Is Ray Epps?
Who is Ray Epps? A mountain of evidence points to him as the lead instigator of the January 6th riots. Yet as the Attorney General's dragnet sweeps up and indicts innocent Americans, why hasn't Epps b
The biggest crime that day was the murder of Ashli Babbit. Unfortunately for her, she was a white person and not on the side of Biden's regime, so no consequences for the murder (in earthly court).
And, if we look the consequences for riots democrats support, the "republican" riots should be judged the same way. Those who are on the side of democrats can apparently do almost anything, while republicans are judged in a different way.
"Democrats embraced the left-wing mob that occupied the state Capitol in Madison. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted as they assaulted the Capitol that she continued “to stand in solidarity” with the union activists."
Dems have abandoned all principle by telegraphing approval of some rioting
Are some riots good and others unacceptable? Surely not. Those who destroy property and commit assaults, whether against law enforcers or civilians, ought to be punished, no matter the cause they c…
nypost.com
Double standards are one of the most annoying thing, especially when also false accusations included.
And by what I know, there is no evidence for seditious conspiracy.
So, should we correct them, before they lead more people astray?
Trump was judged, but I don't think it was right judgment, because no evidence.
Yes, because Biden is not be judged the same way, for example by the accusations of Tara Reade.
Babbit was not murdered. She was killed by people defending the Capitol from insurrection. She should have been defending her country, not attacking it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. No tears shed here.
The "Republican riots" were an attack on the nation's Capitol, not looting. The crimes are different, and so are the reactions to them.
It doesn't matter what you or I know. It matters what the juries who heard the arguments and convicted them knew.
How she was attacking anything? She didn't have any weapon.
From Wiki:
"Babbitt attempted to climb through a shattered window beside a barricaded door into the Speaker's Lobby, and was shot in the left shoulder by a United States Capitol Police (USCP) officer. After a USCP emergency response team administered aid, Babbitt was transported to Washington Hospital Center, where she died. The USCP deemed the shooting was "lawful and within Department policy" and "potentially saved Members (of Congress) and staff from serious injury and possible death."
She participated in an insurrection. She was part of a violent mob storming a federal building protected by armed defenders. She was at the vanguard, which is how she became a target. The defenders of the Capitol had no duty to check and see what weapons she had with her. She had been in the military (twelve years in the Air Force) yet participated in an uprising against her country.
She was shot attempting to breach the capital defenses. She should have been on the other side of that window defending her country from the mob, but instead, she chose to be a part of it and died a traitor's death. She was an enemy of your country, but your sympathies are with her. Had she been climbing through the window of your home, you also would be justified in killing her whether she was armed or not.
Here's more. This was NOT a good person. From Ashli Babbitt, Jan. 6 insurrectionist portrayed as martyr by some, had violent past:
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The first time Celeste Norris laid eyes on Ashli Babbitt, the future insurrectionist had just rammed her vehicle three times with an SUV and was pounding on the window, challenging her to a fight.
Norris says the bad blood between them began in 2015, when Babbitt engaged in a monthslong extramarital affair with Norris’ longtime live-in boyfriend. When she learned of the relationship, Norris called Babbitt’s husband and told him she was cheating.
“She pulls up yelling and screaming,” Norris said in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, recounting the July 29, 2016, road-rage incident in Prince Frederick, Maryland. “It took me a good 30 seconds to figure out who she was. … Just all sorts of expletives, telling me to get out of the car, that she was going to beat my ***.”
Babbitt was later charged with numerous misdemeanors.
The attack on Norris is an example of erratic and sometimes threatening behavior by Babbitt, who was shot by a police officer while at the vanguard of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Former President Donald Trump and his supporters have sought to portray her as a righteous martyr who was unjustly killed. The officer who shot her was cleared of any wrongdoing by two federal investigations.
But the life of the Air Force veteran from California who died while wearing a Trump campaign flag wrapped around her shoulders like a cape, was far more complicated than the heroic portrait presented by Trump and his allies.
In the months before her death, Babbitt had become consumed by pro-Trump conspiracy theories and posted angry screeds on social media. She also had a history of making violent threats.
Babbitt, 35, was fatally shot while attempting to climb through the broken window of a barricaded door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby inside the Capitol, where police officers were evacuating members of Congress from the mob supporting Trump’s false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen."
Last edited:
I don't think that is true and I don't think she deserved death penalty for what she did. But, it is interesting how differently for example George Floyd was made martyr.
Because he was basically murdered?
As much as Ashli Babbit, but Ashli was from wrong party, and with wrong skin color, so in her case murder doesn't matter.
No, she was attacking, he was being murdered whilst apparently being 'restrained'.
Ashli Babbit earned her death when she attacked her country. Don't shed any tears for her. Why do you take that traitor's side? Who taught you to think like that? What do you stand for?
Killing in self defense and defense of others generally isn't considered murder.
Doesn't matter?
What about all the pain it's caused people? The violence, oppression, suppression? Doesn't matter? Religious and political leaders have used "doesn't matter" for two millennia to oppress and punish, and massacre people. Doesn't matter that something that isn't real has been used in such horrific ways? 
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Speaking of dead people, what about Kristiana Coignard, age 17, shot by police officers after nearly an hour of negotiation, including sitting down with her inside the lobby of the police station? Anyone heard of her?
people.com
Kristiana Coignard, 17, Shot Dead by Police
Kristiana Coignard, 17, was fatally shot after police say she was "brandishing a weapon" at officers
A lot of Jesus's teachings in the Bible can be summed up as "don't combat evil - you'll be rewarded in Heaven for your suffering and God will make sure that justice is done."
Without God, this just turns into "let evil have its way."