fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3014 ]

[ SECRET POST #3014 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3014 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

20. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

21.

__________________________________________________

22.

__________________________________________________

23.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 130 secrets from Secret Submission Post #431.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A lot of people have used it to shove compulsory sexuality down people's throats("sex is great! if you don't like it, you're just repressed by religion/sex-negative culture/the patriarchy/abuse" "sex is a human need" "everyone has sexual needs" etc etc). Even today there are still sex-positive feminists that spread this idea.

It's caused a lot of suffering for asexuals.

And like the anon downthread mentioned, some people use it as an excuse for inappropriate behavior. There are a lot of valid criticisms of "sex positivity" as it's practiced by many.

Edited 2015-04-05 21:14 (UTC)

"Sex is a human need" gets on my nerves so much, and I'm not even asexual. It's a human drive - not a need. Food, oxygen, and water are needs.

The next step on that ladder is "Sex is a human right", which in turn leads to fascism. (With some steps in-between, but basically yeah.)

Except that it isn't a need? People won't *die* if they don't have sex - they will die without actual needs like food and water.

However, the majority of the human race is pretty heavily driven to have sex.

Man, I've never even heard that. Sounds like it could lead to some really nasty places.

Ohhhh. You ran across Government Gets Girlfriends, didn't you? I'm sorry.

--Rogan

I was actually reading a really interesting discussion about that once. I think it can be a need for some people. I think it could be seen as a subsection of our need for human interaction. Like how everyone needs food but the exact types of food that people need vary between individuals because of allergies and hormone issues and everything. So maybe some people really do need sex for optimum mental health.

But that can still go down some bad roads when you start arguing about the obligation to fulfill another person's needs. Some people think that's an obligation and some people don't, and if you're in the former group then I definitely get why you wouldn't want to think of sex as a need in any way.

I mean, some people need a lot of things, but when you say "sex is a human need" you frame it as something every human needs to survive. (General you, obviously.) I don't necessarily disagree with you - I mean I don't know? has anyone ever literally gone insane from not having sex? because that's what happens if you deprive a human of all social interaction and put them in complete isolation. do they become dysfunctional the way humans do if they're not isolated but deprived of normal interaction? I have never heard of any of this.

Anyway, like I said - I don't like the way it's set up. Maslow's hierarchy lists it as a PHYSIOLOGICAL NEED which is utterly ridiculous: "breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion". Sex is quite literally the only thing on there that you don't physically need, as in, will DIE from not having! Why is it there? And when people buy into "sex is a need", it's a slap in the face to a) asexual people and b) people who choose not to have sex, for any of a variety of reasons.

Not to mention, yeah - all kinds of questions about who, exactly, is obligated to fulfill that need.

I'm an extroverted asexual.

I need social interaction, otherwise I will snap. I do not, in any way, need sex. Literally no one, even sex addicts, needs sex.

tbh I've seen "sex is a human need" so often in so many discussions (especially in SJ circles) it's fucking ridiculous. It's been used to justify all kinds of stupid behavior. "You can't expect him to NOT have unprotected sex with a new man every week! People NEED sex!"

Like, no. No they do not. Needs are, as you say, food and water and oxygen and shelter from the elements. Not having sex might be stressful (in the medical sense), but so is being poor or working a shitty job or not having close friendships.

I would be pretty comfortable calling not being poor (in the sense of poverty, not in the sense of not having as much money as other people) a legitimate need. I would be comfortable calling not having to work a shitty alienating job a need. I would be comfortable calling close personal friendships a legitimate need.

Those are some really poor examples, man.

ayrt

Uh, no. Those are not needs. Those are wants. A person can have a long mostly-healthy and happy life while being poor, or while working a shitty job, or while lacking close friends. In fact, the vast majority of human beings throughout history have spent their entire lives impoverished and working unfulfilling jobs.

aight this is pretty obviously just going to be a semantic argument about what we mean by the word 'need' so fuck it

well we are in fact talking about things humans need for survival...

Exactly. And it's such a slap in the face to asexual people, or people with low libidos, or people who choose not to have sex, or people who can't find a partner even though they really want one, or...the list goes on

Actually, even when I was mostly ace, what slapped ME in the face about it was that I was a rape survivor. GUESS WHAT MY RAPISTS ALWAYS TOLD ME. It took my husband FOREVER to persuade me otherwise.

I feel really lucky that I somehow have apparently never encountered actual sex positive people who are like this. (My rapists were NOT. They were chauvinist rapey assholes. They wouldn't know feminism or social justice if it bit them on the asses.)

--Rogan

Now I kinda want to know what they said to you (that you weren't really ace??) because I feel like I'm missing something really obvious. If you don't want to talk about it no worries. Sorry for not completely understanding what you're getting at.

(no subject)

lb_lee - 2015-04-08 19:09 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

diet_poison - 2015-04-09 05:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

lb_lee - 2015-04-09 15:34 (UTC) - Expand

I think it depends a little on what people mean when they say "need." A lot of the time, what people mean when they say they need something is that they have a strong desire or preference for it, or that it's important enough to them that they'll only vivre or up under certain circumstances. For example, I "need" sex in a relationship, not in the sense that I'll die without it, but in the sense that it's important enough to me to be a deal breaker.

But, the difference between me and the kind of people I think you're talking about is that I don't use that to get to force anyone to have sex with me. I'm upfront about it in the beginning of the relationship so we can make sure we're on the same page before things get serious. It's okay for someone to not want sex. I just want a partner who does want it.

I think people do need to remember that "needing" sex or a certain kind of sex is something that's on them, not on other people. It's up to them to find a partner with similar needs, not to force someone with different needs to bend to them. And if they do really want to be with someone who has different needs for whatever reason, then they need to figure out a compromise, not make it all about them.

I think it depends a little on what people mean when they say "need." A lot of the time, what people mean when they say they need something is that they have a strong desire or preference for it, or that it's important enough to them that they'll only vivre or up under certain circumstances. For example, I "need" sex in a relationship, not in the sense that I'll die without it, but in the sense that it's important enough to me to be a deal breaker.

Right, but you can say you have "needs" in a relationship but that's not the same thing as saying "X is a human need". It's not even close. (I think you know this, just clarifying) Like I have lots of needs in a relationship, such as someone who's emotionally supportive, someone who is looking for a life partner, someone who is totally honest, etc. but those are just a completely different conceptual category from "humans need air, water, and food to survive". And people who say "humans need sex" are usually not talking about relationships either.

As for your approach, that's a totally sensible thing and it's the thing people should do, as far as approaches to relationships.

I'd actually never thought it this way. About how the reverse implications of sex positivity can be used to make people feel bad for things they shouldn't feel bad about.

I will keep this in mind when talking about this subject in the future. Thank you for bringing it up.

Aww, the poor asexuals.

I'd think long and hard (no pun intended) about why you're so upset over asexuals talking about the negative ways sex-positivity has affected them. For some mystifying reason, it bothers you enough that you took the time to leave a comment belittling them and their experiences.

Not just asexuals. But, by all means, continue belittling people.

All the emphasis on sex, sex-positivity and sensual/sexual things has ruined feminism. I don't care for Third Wave feminism. It's not negative to NOT want to hear about sexual matters ALL THE TIME. The only people that may need it in the "First World" are- IMHO- women that have been in Fundamentalist cults.

Not even just asexuals.

If you're not 100% comfortable with talking about sexual stuff, that can get you labelled as "prudish" or some sort of religious fundamentalist.

It's ridiculous.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only