3 ms·

You need to eat. You need to leave the house. You need to use some form of motorized transport to partake in society. You don't need to have sex. Abstinence is

by kmm 9y ago

You need to eat. You need to leave the house. You need to use some form of motorized transport to partake in society. You don't need to have sex. Abstinence is a form of birth control as much as being bald is a hairstyle.

SolaceQuantum 9y ago
So pleasure should only be for the wealthy? I know that this may sound strange, and I don't share this trait myself, but for many people sex is a critical part of forming a romantic bond with their partner. Without sex, they feel unloved and invalidated in the relationship. That's just part of their emotional needs. So for some people sex is indeed a psychological need.
Aloha 9y ago
Speak for yourself.
gjm11 9y ago
You don't need to do any of those things. You can subsist on liquid diet-drinks. Plenty of people never leave their homes, either by choice or because for some reason they can't. Plenty of people don't have cars. (I didn't until I was 36 years old.) But a large fraction of people would find their lives made much, much worse if they were unable to eat solid food, to leave their house, or to drive a car. Exactly the same goes for sex. Brief reminder of the context for this discussion: the person the OP is about had a child despite not having much money, various people here said you shouldn't be having children if you're too short of money, others pointed out that not having children is sometimes difficult, and that is when user rubidium suggested that total abstinence from sex might be the answer. So we're talking here about whether it's reasonable to say that poor people should just never have sex. I guess opinions on that might vary. My opinion is: duh, no, what an absolutely terrible idea. You don't literally have to have sex any more than you literally have to have friends or holidays or music, but just like any of those it's a hell of a thing to say whole classes of people should just do without.

by kmm 9y ago

SolaceQuantum 9y ago

So pleasure should only be for the wealthy? I know that this may sound strange, and I don't share this trait myself, but for many people sex is a critical part of forming a romantic bond with their partner. Without sex, they feel unloved and invalidated in the relationship. That's just part of their emotional needs. So for some people sex is indeed a psychological need.

Aloha 9y ago

Speak for yourself.

gjm11 9y ago

You don't need to do any of those things. You can subsist on liquid diet-drinks. Plenty of people never leave their homes, either by choice or because for some reason they can't. Plenty of people don't have cars. (I didn't until I was 36 years old.) But a large fraction of people would find their lives made much, much worse if they were unable to eat solid food, to leave their house, or to drive a car. Exactly the same goes for sex. Brief reminder of the context for this discussion: the person the OP is about had a child despite not having much money, various people here said you shouldn't be having children if you're too short of money, others pointed out that not having children is sometimes difficult, and that is when user rubidium suggested that total abstinence from sex might be the answer. So we're talking here about whether it's reasonable to say that poor people should just never have sex. I guess opinions on that might vary. My opinion is: duh, no, what an absolutely terrible idea. You don't literally have to have sex any more than you literally have to have friends or holidays or music, but just like any of those it's a hell of a thing to say whole classes of people should just do without.