Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Need fulfillment

Hi Friends;

  My mind has been wandering down some odd paths today, but you're used to that.  What I've been thinking on is how our fundamental needs are fulfilled.
  There are some very straight forward needs that all of us have.  Maslow spoke of these, and indicated that fulfillment of them was necessary to advance our thoughts and goals into higher realms.  And, in the most part, our cultures encourage the business community to fill these needs.  For instance, if you are hungry, we have restaurants.  Sleepy - motels.  If you seek entertainment - cinemas and clubs.  If you are needing health care - doctors.  Churches, museums, pharmacies....etc.  The point is that all of these services for one's needs are simply provided in the community.  And yet, aside from all of these professionally administered services, there still exists a very fundamental part of each of us that typically requires some form of expression:  Sex.
  Sex is such a basic and common need, present in all creatures, and yet is deemed a dirty, illegal business.  Where every other common need has institutions in the community to address them, we are left to fumble on our own, or with other often just as inexperienced and ignorant, in the pursuit of this need.  And, I wonder why.
  Most likely, I guess it is morality.  But what are morals but an expression of a culture's values, no more iron-clad than any other culture's values and really not necessarily based on what is logical or rational.  And yet, most cultures are quite pragmatic, maintaining that which works and discarding those things that do not - to a certain degree.  So why is it that such a basic need as sex has been relegated to the back room, the dark closet, the "unspoken"?  If a culture is rational and focuses on what is necessary, wouldn't that include a healthy open approach to sex just as other needs are fulfilled in the community?
  Where does this thought come from, I bet you wonder...or not. Well, I guess I've been somewhat open about my own slow understanding of my orientation and how it is currently lacking in expression.  And, I've thought about the role sex plays in our culture.  I can't help but to wonder if my life would change for the better by being able to procure sexual expression the same way I procure groceries, gasoline, etc.  And, I wonder what sort of changes a more open sexual environment would make on the culture's offenders?  Would the concept of "gay marriage" be so difficult for some to accept?  And, how would young people view themselves if they weren't hampered with overhanging concerns about their sexuality?
  Would we have fewer problems if there were stores offering this service as easily attained as bread and milk?  Or, would we find a whole host of new problems?


Sammy B said...

Hello Randy
The way religions of one stamp or another have arrogated arbitration of sexual morality to themselves is their not very subtle means of trying to keep power and social control in their own hands. If you have control of access to a basic need - in this case, sex - you have the means to become very rich and powerful. And absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton said. It takes no more than a cursory glance at most organised religion to find proof of that adage.

Love & best wishes
Sammy B

randy said...

Hi Sammy;
That would definitely seem true. Control need, control person.

Scottie said...

Hello Randy. Sorry I have not bee around much. Busy with this work Project. But I think in this case you mistake sex for intimacy. Sex is a physical action one can... basically do alone if you wish. It is a simple release that helps remove tension. You can have sex with anyone even a stranger, but when the act is over what do you have, what do you take away from the action.

Intimacy is building a structure in which sex happens and adds to the foundations, and closeness of the people involved. Intimacy continues to grow and develop, while a sex act has a limited time frame, intimacy is on going.

Intimacy can be the glue in a relationship that for any reason sex is not possible or reduced in frequency.

So I would say that intimacy is a basic need. But sex sure is fun.
Hugs, Scottie

Anonymous said...

Hi Randy, Hi Scotty,
I think before any one can have intimacy, a sexual sense may be present. This sexual awareness must first be learned. Here again comes the religion and morality into the game.
We had religion groups in the 70/80 years, that rejected prohibit any mention of sexual terms in education. These groups called themselves "pietists" - we called them "Pietkong". (Vietcong = Terror)

Scottie said...

Hello Nikki, would platonic relationships which give intimacy with out sex, fulfill the basic need, or just cause more frustration... what about the new trend of friends with benefits? Thanks for helping me understand. Hugs, Scottie

Anonymous said...

I think that it depends on the definition of platonic love.
Is it this platonic love at all?
In my view, this Platonic love is only an excuse for a relationship in which one or both parties are afraid of a sexual relationship.

randy said...

Such great comments;
Intimacy, sex...like Scottie said, two slightly different things. They can be a wonderful combination and they can stand seperate.
What I meant in this post was sex. Just as I can cook a meal at home, sometimes I go to a resturant.
The question: are there benefits to a professional service? Do they overcome the problems?

Thank you all for the great comments.