>One (fem) writer claimed it somehow justified rape. That's as absurd as saying the need for food justifies armed robbery.

People conflate "explaining" or "causing" with "justification". They also think that by eliminating words they will eliminate the actual problem...

It's not a basic physical need. It's a psychological need. We know, because many people can go years or decades without sex. That's fundamentally different from food, air, water and shelter from the elements.

Not saying it isn't an important psychological need, but it's not a literal "basic physical need". Words mean things.

The context is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is not only about physical needs. Physical is just the basics, at the bottom.

I reacted to this: "... sex appeared on it TWICE. Once on the bottom level as a basic physical need ..."

Reproduction is in fact a biological imperative - your gene line will die without it. People don't eat food because they know they'll die if they don't, they eat because they're hungry. Biology tells the animal what it needs to do. There is a natural drive even if it's not technically a requirement for the individual animal (human) to survive in the environment.

There is a physical aspect however - libidos don't exist purely in your head. Hormones have effects.

most pyramids I've seen lump Physical and Psychological in the same bottom category. So it would still go at the bottom of the pyramid despite not being something you would die without.

It's in the same vein as non-intimate socialization (another aspect we can technically go years without, but has shown to have dire mental effects. Sometimes shockingly fast).

I'd say it's a basic urge or desire in most people, but not even necessarily a need. A goal, an aspiration, something to seek. Similar to wealth, status, respect etc.

Also, there are asexual people. It seems strange to define something as a "basic" human need if many people can live a healthy life without it.

And yes, a certain level of socialization is definitely necessary to become a functional human.

Psychological doesn't mean "you can't become a functional human without it". it means "without it, the mental state of a significant amount of humans will be altered". Under that definition, there is certainly an argument to be made about sex in some forms being a "psychological need". which build off the 3 universal psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness:

https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/microsites/promoting-healthy-weight-i...).

There are many much more well studied people who have spent much longer debating this, so I'm not interested in debating this here. I just want to note that valid arguments exist, and that I feel you are still conflating "basic" with "psychological".

----

>Also, there are asexual people.

If you'd like another more controversial example: consider parental supervision. You can live a healthly life without ever leaving your parents' home nor ruleset. And in some other societies it is entirely expected to live in your parents' home even after marriage alongside one's parents (still following their personal values). However, some may argue that this hampers the psychological needs of autonomy and competence. That one will never have true control and choice and that you can never truly go out and challenge oneself while under a parent's wing.

Much like the basic "needs" of sex, this can be under contention and is ultimately up to society. A few anecdotes of those who made it or not doesn't rule it out as arguably being a psychological need not being met. Much like a few asexual people not necessarily ruling out sex as aruably being a psychological need at some leve.

Let's not get too far away from my original point. When people say "sex is a basic physical need", they want to imply or paint the association that it's like water and air. It's not like that.

"People" say a lot of things that may or may not be outdated, outright stupid, or otherwise missing nuance. If that's your original point, I'm not interested in it, to be frank.

I'm mostly responding to the original idea of "Putting it on that pyramid has somehow fallen out of favor". your initial response of "It's not a basic physical need. It's a psychological need. " made it sound like it didn't deserve to be on bottom part of the pyramid, or that you perhaps didn't know that those two categories are often the same part of the pyramid. So I responded in turn to inform.

I think I remember something about the bottom level also including solo activities, which makes it much more reasonable as a physical need. The higher level was then intended to be with someone else.

> That's as absurd as saying the need for food justifies armed robbery

Before considering lofty philosophical ideas like "Justification", it's useful to consider basic system dynamics:

"This paper provides an overview of the link between food insecurity and violent conflict, addressing both traditional and emerging threats to security and political stability."

https://www.wfp.org/publications/occasional-paper-24-food-in...

>Before considering lofty philosophical ideas like "Justification"

But... that was the whole topic. We're not talking about whether hunger causes violence, or whether sexual frustration causes rape. No doubt they do. The point was that labeling "food" as an essential need doesn't constitute an endorsement of food-related violence, and by analogy labeling sex as essential doesn't constitute an endorsement of rape.

The parent did say “I suspect the real issue is that it offered an explanation (not a justification)”, which is close to the point I was making.

I read your GGP just like the GP did: Somehow you managed to make it look like the point you were making was the complete opposite of what you're now saying it was.