And what makes you think Maslow was right? Just because someone wrote something down or a belief is held as true in the Zeitgeist does not make it objectively true. There are many things that we hold as "true" which we really can't say are objective fact.

I'm not trying to be combative, I just believe that it's important to question things we believe to be true when we don't fully understand the reasoning.

Admittedly, though I know OF Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I have no idea HOW Maslow came to their conclusions. So, I just looked it up:

> The most significant limitation of Maslow's theory concerns his methodology. Maslow formulated the characteristics of self-actualized individuals from undertaking a qualitative method called biographical analysis.[1]

> He looked at the biographies and writings of 18 people he identified as being self-actualized. From these sources, he developed a list of qualities that seemed characteristic of this specific group of people, as opposed to humanity in general.[1]

> From a scientific perspective, there are numerous problems with this particular approach. First, it could be argued that biographical analysis as a method is extremely subjective as it is based entirely on the opinion of the researcher. Personal opinion is always prone to bias, which reduces the validity of any data obtained. Therefore Maslow's operational definition of self-actualization must not be blindly accepted as scientific fact.[1]

Doesn't seem like the experiment was very rigorous or even scientific.

The linked article goes on to explain more modern and scientific research on the subject that seems to disprove some of the original hierarchy's assumptions.

[1] https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html#evaluation

You might be confused because Maslow thought sex was on the same level as food and sleep.

Of course, today, the idea that men need sex simply because they are alive is repulsive.

Try substituting 'crave' for 'need' there. You're assigning moral weight to something that acts more like hunger, or attempting to breathe whilst drowning.

People can adapt to this lack more gracefully than they can adapt to drowning, but it's not a thinking process being addressed here. This is an animal drive and you can't switch it off just because it's ungraceful.

Why is this idea repulsive?

I think they are conflating needing sex with deserving or being garunteed sex.

Yes, I've conflated the idea of "needing" something with the idea of "deserving" something.

For example, some people need food, but they don't deserve it just because they're alive. We call that hunger.

Other people need housing, but they don't deserve it just because they're alive. We call that homelessness.

Some need sex, but they don't deserve it just because they're alive. We call those people incels.

Why don't you think people deserve housing and food, in the richest country in the history of the world? Our society could absolutely provide them, it just doesn't because they're "not worthy".

Sorry what? USA doesn't provide food to poor people? I find that a little hard to believe. Even India, with one tenth the resources per capita, manages to do that.

They do, food stamps are a monthly allotment on a debit card for low income households.

Different societies has different understandings what people deserve.