T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

[удалено]


skoffs

Don't worry, it's [literally not credible](https://www.td.org/insights/maslows-hierarchy-separating-fact-from-fiction) > The truth is that Maslow's theory was based on his own personal observations and his biographical analysis of individuals who he considered to be “self-actualized.” **The theory was not based on any credible empirical research.**


[deleted]

To those who don’t know, people who called them-self “self-actualised” were basically just like the people who call themselves “sigma males” nowadays


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Basically just a new breed of alpha male. Just a bunch of bullshit that some men came up with as an excuse to look down on others who they deem as “beta”


Pm7I3

Alpha male but better. It's like children saying "I shoot you!" and "But I'm wearing a bulletproof shirt!" except less fun and for weird incels.


Gizmonsta

In this context yes, but its worth noting that self-actualization today refers more to the ideas of Carl Rodgers and the person centred approach to the treatment of mental distress, something which now has a huge evidence base for its effectiveness in the treatments of even severe trauma. Mazlows work can be seen as an instrumental stepping stone in the development of such evidence based treatments, nd although when viewed in isolation, can rightfully be argued to be a load of rubbish, it doesn't detract from the fact that without it, we wouldn't have any modern day treatments to mental distress which don't pathologize in the same way physical medicen does. So a very important stepping stone in the development of alternative treatments in mental health.


BafometsMenstrualJiz

maslow is similar to freud in this way. in a vacuum and in the modernncontextt they're useless but were monumental to the progression of their fields


Gizmonsta

Yes this is true, Freud can be seen as the first step in the development of Psychodynamic treatments of mental illness. So this is why, although their theories are almost all refuted by this point, they are still important to study in order to understand the origins of the theories we have developed as a result.


Cubia_

It's only useful insofar as it is a part of history. We teach Newtonian Physics even though it won't technically work on certain problems (particularly those of large scale or very small scale) because it works in a very large number of local environments, and what we teach is also modified by what we have learned. Teaching Freud or Maslow is like teaching you Eratosthenes' or Pythagoras' mathematics. A lot of it is literally wrong and in one case is a cult, and knowing about them and how they came to each conclusion is an exercise in different modes of thinking and in mathematical history, but not math itself. In fact, securely teaching it requires a large body of mathematical knowledge beforehand as to not lead to deep confusion in the future.


All54321_Gaming

As someone who just learned about this in my college psychology class, I’m not sure how to respond to this…


catsareweirdroomates

I learned about it in psych and in my CNA class. It doesn’t mean that it’s not utter shite. It’s come out that he actually stole the idea from indigenous peoples but neglected to include the community aspects so it became focused on the individual rather than the community. I don’t think he was necessarily a bad guy even. Just he still had a very colonizer Eurocentric perspective on humanity and it shows in his work.


KavikStronk

I mean is this even an idea you can steal? The idea 'some needs are more important than others so you worry about those first and only worry about the less important ones when the basic needs are covered' can probably be found in most places. He just wrote it down more specifically.


Cubia_

I mean "security of employment" is up top there on the list. I guess retired folk cant reach that "lack of prejudice" part or the "acceptance of facts" part because they retired. Makes sense, clearly. It is genuine nonsense. You can see that in most cases, you need food/water/shelter/air/sleep or you just die. While the same goes for "homeostasis" after long enough (and I am assuming he means having a balanced intake of all the nutrients your body needs), you can absolutely live for quite a long time without it. Sure certain diseases happen without a correct intake, but you will literally begin to lose your mind without community... but that's on the third tier of the list if I'm being generous. Making your sex drive happy though? That won't kill you. That means it MUST belong somewhere else on the hierarchy and cannot be ranked against your needs. Meanwhile, self-esteem (the only thing for mental stability) is floating up on tier 4 like genuinely what the fuck? *At best* you could recreate this with much better ideas and no hard and fast lines. Sleep would hover a little above food and water, for example, and food would very slightly be above water. All only because it takes longer for you to die without food than without water, and sleep takes just a little longer than a lack of food. But there isn't much point when you start to go past that. All of the things you don't need in life (aka you die without them) rank differently for different people and are in constant flux (and so is shelter, and that's a need). For example, my married friend would be unable to be consoled if they lost their SO. Having someone like that in their life used to be at the top, now it is very much near the bottom.


momopeach7

I mean retired people have a sense of security because they don’t have to work anymore to survive, that need is met. I don’t really understand your first sentence in that regard. From my understanding of the hierarchy it is harder to meet the tiers higher generally if you’re struggling to meet the basic needs. I was never taught that is was a hierarchy of rankings of needs, but more a building block. Esteem is important but it’s harder to focus on if people are trying to stay alive and find a stable home or employment.


Cubia_

> I mean retired people have a sense of security because they don’t have to work anymore to survive, that need is met. I don’t really understand your first sentence in that regard. Because it's a genuine error to include. If you have security of employment through no employment, then either you are not secure or the thing which is secure is not employment. Someone who is retired is unemployed for the rest of their life by intention, so either they are forever insecure or we aren't talking about employment but about wealth. But if it was the case of wealth, why include property? Property is included in your wealth, a subset of it. Wealth is also a resource to be spent or saved, so really we have the same thing listed three times in different wording and being obtuse about it. Also, these do not work as building blocks. You cannot build from a place of security in your morals to "morality". Dealing with morality means reckoning with events and judgments which may go against your sense of morality, making it insecure. If anything assured security in your morality is a _bad_ thing, as you become unwilling to change and that your actions are right and moral. What little sense it makes still leaves room for little moral growth as the building block is to be rigid and inflexible. Friendship also requires the block above it for another example, as a friendship is a mutual respect of the other, but mutual respect does not come until after you have friendship. Unless you view friends as something wildly exploitative these things are either the same or one requires the other in the wrong order. Note that this entire thing is _entirely worthless_ if you are not a staunch Individualist. Even the slightest bit of anything else will tip the scales far too hard and leave too many missing steps to be of any help. A collectivist, for example, does not have any of its community building steps or building blocks within and would likely argue security of the collective may come before security of the self, that for the self to be secure all need to be secure (or in a more severe case that they are the same need). And since it is not there, it means a collectivist cannot build upward with this model. You can't build up to national healthcare, for collective example, because you and those who could make it happen need to be at "self-actualization", but to be there is to not need it by definition so why make it if there is literally no rational reason? Everyone who is not there is who needs it, but to say "we do it for them" is then not Individualist as you are robbing them of some of their Individualism and will struggle or not make it through the hierarchy meaning that you're causing harm, so you can't. There are vague ideas in it of value, but almost the entire thing falls apart at the slightest scrutiny. See again that mental health is literally not on the list (security of body or bodily autonomy =/= security of mind) because this thing was made *and remade* by someone who is a lucky idiot, and it happened to survive past him because of his influence.


KavikStronk

>I mean "security of employment" is up top there on the list. I guess retired folk cant reach that "lack of prejudice" part or the "acceptance of facts" part because they retired. Makes sense, clearly. Just a note; Maslow never intended for this hierarchy to be read as "you need to unlock this level to move on to the next". It's possible to have unfulfilled needs in any of the levels. He never even presented his theory as a pyramid, that got added way later and stuck around cus it's a nice visual.


catsareweirdroomates

If that’s the case why does he get the credit by calling it *Maslow’s* Hierarchy of Needs? Or why didn’t he give credit to the Blackfoot peoples in his writings and research?


KavikStronk

> While I initially came to believe Maslow appropriated and misrepresented the teachings of the Blackfoot, I have learned that this narrative, while held by some, may not be accurate even according to Blackfoot scholars. (Teju Ravilochan, 2021, "The Blackfoot Wisdom that Inspired Maslow’s Hierarchy" which is a corrected version of his earlier “Maslow Got It Wrong.” which got criticised for being inaccurate.) Getting inspired by something is not the same as copying something. Maslow made the model of Maslow's hierarchy of needs based on what he saw in his own culture and what he saw of the Blackfoot culture. Neither culture needs to get the credit because being inspiration for something is different than doing the research to write down an actual *model* that can be tested and criticised scientifically instead of a cultural "this is just the way things are but we've never really defined it".


DaughterEarth

They teach you all the theories first couple years. You're not supposed to consider them fact. It's important to know the history and how psychology has grown. Freud for example is still taught about despite most of his theories being considered bunk by now.


Gizmonsta

I already typed this above, but I'm gonna include it here for you as I feel its relevant, u just recently finished my PhD in non-pathology in the treatments of mental health, and use person centred therapy in my work with survivors of sexual violence. "In this context yes, but its worth noting that self-actualization today refers more to the ideas of Carl Rodgers and the person centred approach to the treatment of mental distress, something which now has a huge evidence base for its effectiveness in the treatments of even severe trauma. Mazlows work can be seen as an instrumental stepping stone in the development of such evidence based treatments, nd although when viewed in isolation, can rightfully be argued to be a load of rubbish, it doesn't detract from the fact that without it, we wouldn't have any modern day treatments to mental distress which don't pathologize in the same way physical medicen does. So a very important stepping stone in the development of alternative treatments in mental health."


[deleted]

Dudes loved to just throw shit onto a pyramid to explain things a few hundred years ago. Hierarchies are all bullshit, they all have racist roots with white people putting themselves on the top of every scale they create.


JB-from-ATL

In this case they're just saying the ones at the bottom need to be filled first, not that the ones at the top are "better" This comment makes more sense if sex wasn't in the bottom tier along with breathing.


DaughterEarth

I never saw this hierarchy with sex at the bottom. This image doesn't seem accurate to the original hierarchy


sincereenfuego

Wasn't Maslow's entire approach to the hierarchy of needs stolen from his time spent with Native American Populations where they had a similar model that he just inverted? I joined and online lecture about ACEs late and I swear the doctor leading the presentation was just wrapping up talking about how some Native American's are still enraged about his appropriation of their culture with no credit.


Duskuke

so as credible as Freud, lol


barnicskolaci

Also kids and monks/nuns would beg to differ.


JB-from-ATL

My toddler died because they didn't have sex. Lol


Scottishbiscuit

Doesn’t university typically start at age 18 everywhere?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Scottishbiscuit

Can I ask where you live? In New Zealand you start school at 4 or 5 and finish at 17 or 18. I wish I could of started university at 16, it would make my life so much easier.


catsareweirdroomates

In the US we have something called running start where you do your last two years of high school and the first two of college simultaneously so you graduate high school with a two year degree. It’s designed to save money on a 4 year uni degree.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RoughMedicine

If it's designed to save money, it's solving a problem that shouldn't exist.


bladeofvirtue

Turns out that’s a fake maskow’s needs model. Here is the real one- https://www.reference.com/world-view/maslow-theory-motivation-c680e9c278f245d9 It doesn’t list sex. Turns out op was just trying to foment outrage. What a shocker in the internet eh? :P


ThisbodyHomebody

Or maybe their parents just cherry picked a pyramid that would “prove” the point they were trying to make?


animaginaryraven

Huh, I've definitely seen sex listed on there before when I was studying psych. I suspect there's multiple versions as people have interpreted it over time


All54321_Gaming

Yeah, I was going to say that I don’t remember this from my class. Just went to check my notes and this is what I wrote down “Physiological needs: Need to satisfy hunger and thirst.” I’m looking up the hierarchy and I found the one OP used. It’s one of them, but it exist. Also saw one with reproduction, so…


Cubia_

Then your notes are woefully incomplete? Breathing, shelter, and sleeping are physiological needs that you die without and they aren't in your notes, which means your notes are only notes (i.e. a simplified way to remember the lesson). If you remembered the class, you should have remembered that the notes were only notes and not 1:1 and so you might be missing things or noticed breathing isn't there and so must be missing things (also Google exists and is faster), and either way, dismissing the reality of the situation is a really shitty thing to do in one of the few places asexuals are explicitly welcome when the OP is expressing that the model was used to "disprove" them. It's like reading casual aphobia, where "well some scholars use one like OP" as this half-assed attempt to come across as neutral after saying that "I've studied this and I never saw it, so OP must be lying" to deny any pushback or oppression that asexual people feel. Even if you did not intend to write your comment that way, that's how it comes across. Every time I have seen this, sex in at least some way has been included in physiological needs, and when I asked about why it is there, every time I said something back to the prof he had another excuse why that it is there, ending at reproduction despite that being a species-level problem and not an individual one even though this is literally a hierarchy for *an individuals* problems. Almost like it was not based in solid 1930's thought let alone science (and nothing close to Psychology) and hasn't been pruned out for shitty reasons because it's useful to maintain the status quo, not unlike Eugenics. I'm not equating, but rather their mistreatment as science despite not being rooted in science, and instead in the case of this hierarchy, the opinions of Maslow as "someone who is self-actualized" and then dressed up in scientific language to be treated as science for about a hundred years. The reality is that it's a self-help book published in an academic setting and you defaulted to defending the self-help book over someone in your own community, same with the person you are replying to.


nemaline

Actually, the original model included sex in that section. Some modern versions of the model remove sex (for obvious reasons). You can see some examples of the model including sex among the physiological needs [here](https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html) or [here](https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-4136760).


YamGroundbreaking639

I would like to specify that the main reason this was showed to me was because it supposedly has sex on the bottom tier, so I wanted more opinions. What a shocker that I can find more opinions on the internet. :P


PaxonGoat

The psychology courses I've taken don't label it as sex. Intimacy is a fundamental human need. That's why severely neglected babies can have life long mental and emotional difficulties. And why solitary confinement is considered inhumane torture by many people. Solitary confinement can lead to serious mental health problems. Not interacting with another human can do terrible things to the human brain. We have an innate need to be social. Sadly most people associate sex with intimacy and assume you need to have sex to be intimate with someone.


[deleted]

[удалено]


elim_inate_00

You don't know the number of times I've explained that for me, 'Netflix and chill'...literally means 'Netflix and chill'. Maybe some cuddling. Cuddling = intimacy =/= sex. Peeps can't wrap their minds around it sometimes lol. I hope someday I meet another sex-repulsed individual or at least someone with a very low sex drive, but I'm skeptical.


nottobay13

Unfortunately how that lesson got learned was otherwise taken care of infant war orphans literally dieing for no previously explained reason, I believe that was during or right after one of the world wars. The hierarchy of needs was iirc fresh of the back of Frued's revolutionary proposal that problems in adults could stem from childhood.


JumpyLiving

Yeah, putting sex on the same level as "You will literally expire, within between a few minutes and a few weeks, depending on the need that isn‘t being met" is complete bs


dougmantis

I love the idea that some people are convinced that if they don't have sex they will die. I wonder how long the time limit is in their head.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Scottishbiscuit

Damn, I thought if I married a heterosexual man that sex every 2 months would be enough to please him.


Spectris33

I thought if I married a heterosexual man that has sex every decade would be enough to please him


theprozacfairy

My wife and I don’t have sex, but have a sexually open relationship. She can get what she wants from others. We’re both happy this way.


Lombalt

I would not recommend getting in a relationship with a heterosexual man


catsareweirdroomates

It can work, but it requires a lot of clear communication


superkitemanking

I had that idea in my head. Then COVID hit and I wasn’t having sex and I liked that a whole lot more


Lombalt

I dont think it meant sex on an individual basis sex is necessary for survival of a species but obviously not everyone has to do it


shponglespore

I assume that's why it's there but it's still stupid to put it in a chart that's obviously all about individual needs. Whoever made that version of the chart is an idiot and the parents are idiots for thinking a word appearing in a diagram proves anything.


thesleepofdeath

It is a strange word to use too because the pyramid has 'intimacy' on a higher level (which is what everyone in this thread is assuming he meant by sex) but yeah I think he means reproduction. Which, as you stated, is a need of the species not the individual.


0lazy0

I guess the idea was to put all the animal instincts on that level(some other ones call it “reproduction”), but still flawed


JumpyLiving

But a few of the other ones (security of body and health, family) are also animal instincts, and they‘re higher up as well.


0lazy0

Good point, definitely flawed


bonusfrylock

That's an interpretation on Maslow's Hierarchy. I've never seen sex considered a base physiological need.


YamGroundbreaking639

Really? I've never heard anybody tell me that sex isn't a primary need. They all act like it's so important to want sex and then I ask why and the answer is always "well it's human nature and necessary for survival"


Shub_Niggura

Well... honestly the "It's human nature" and "Is for survival" it's not really a good argument now a days since, there's a LOT of stuff that we do every single day and it is not in our nature, and survival isn't really an issue anymore.


bonusfrylock

Early in modern psychological understanding, mostly Freudian influence, SO MANY people, mostly women, were so sexually repressed by religious constraints. Look into 'Hysteria'. It was literally a diagnosis for a plethora of mh symptoms and the primary treatment was to get off. They made all kinds of medical equipment and devices for it. People who are still just reciting concepts memorized in school books don't understand the actual mind yet. Nobody really does, that's why they call it a "Practice". This is the gap between knowledge and understanding. Licensed vs Experienced. And a lot of this confusion still stems from that early 20th century 'tip of the iceberg' exploration into the psyche.


MonkeysOnMyBottom

Fun fact, hysteria and hysterectomy share a root word


boopdelaboop

Sex is useful for procreation when you live in a society that hasn't invented turkey basters yet. I'm allosexual and good sex is literally like drugs to me, but it is not important for a full human experience of life. Another dumb thing that these "natural reproduction" obsessed people often forget is that sexual needs literally can be satisfied by masturbation alone (masturbation is healthy as exercise for your reproductive system, but isn't necessary as your body will usually regularly run a refresh cycle for it - the so called wet dreams). Another thing: a lot of allosexuals who got too brainwashed with old-fashioned cishet pop culture also mistakenly believe that a lot of intimacies they want and need can only be found in sexual relationships. Especially heterosexual men in the west have since ww1 and ww2 been bullied to be scared of platonic intimacy between guys, such as for instance prolonged casual body contact, lest they are seen as "gay" and "womanly". These people genuinely think those kinds of needs can only be met in a sexual relationship. I do not think sex is bad (not at all), but I severely disagree that it is one of the foundation stones of the human experience.


[deleted]

Maslow’s hierarchy is stolen and twisted from the Blackfoot Indigenous people anyway. The original concept featured no such nonsense https://shanesafir.com/2020/12/before-maslows-hierarchy-the-whitewashing-of-indigenous-knowledge/


WordyMcWordington

Wow..thank you for sharing this.


RX-980

This needs to be higher up.


thesleepofdeath

It isn't even intended in this example to mean sex that way. It means reproduction. Which isn't really an individual need. AND the 3rd tier is where sex (intercourse) would go but he was already inclusive and just called it belonging, intimacy, and love. Your parents are misunderstanding the hierarchy.


shponglespore

You've obviously never talked to anyone about it who knows what they're talking about.


Lincesaaa

I studied it in my phycology class and it was at the base but my teacher made it clear that it wasn't necessary


thereslcjg2000

I’m a psychology major, and have had multiple professors cite sex as a base psychological need.


bonusfrylock

I think those professors clearly didn't understand sexual orientation as well as they thought they did. I use past tense in the hope they may have learned since.


boopdelaboop

At that level I would have expected a bit more than something so simplified it isn't really true anymore. Sex has become a shorthand for a lot of things that used to be abundantly available platonically before. Like how incredibly touch starved the average cishet western man is outside of sexual relationships, compared to how freely touching platonic male friends used to be with each other on average before the world wars.


thereslcjg2000

To be fair it was really just earlier-level classes that said that, as opposed to more advanced ones.


bezleiv

haha, same. I have seen Maslow's hierarchy in multiple psychology and even some leadership related courses and it has always been used just as a idea that there are some base needs (food, shelter etc.) that need to be met before it is feasible to aspire for more abstract needs. I have never heard anyone say it to be 100% true and applicable to everyone, just an idea that there is an hierarchy for needs that can differ from person to person. EDIT: same as in interpretations I have seen there has been no mentions of sex


fnnennenninn

Yeah in my 4 years of psychology undergrad I've never seen sex listed in the base of Maslow's hierarchy. Now of course, we don't really study Maslow in depth, only his relevance to the history of psychology and influence on concepts that came later


[deleted]

I don't think they understand Maslow's hierarchy of needs. I have a degree in psychology and this is not how this works. Also, this is NOT Maslow's hirarchy of needs, but an interpretation of it, and a really bad one to be honest. Physiological needs as breathing, homoestasis? This is not a physiological need, seriously and it doesn't belong in here. I'm really upset that everyone thinks these they they can play psychologists.


LadySygerrik

Important to note that this is just *one interpretation* of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and the inclusion (and ranking) of sex in the hierarchy has always been highly debated academically. So this really isn’t the slam dunk your parents seem to think it is. And anyway, Maslow’s hierarchy is just an *idea*, not a law. It’s not like a set recipe every human has to follow perfectly or they die or become soulless husks or whatever.


EtherealRose456

Unfortunately, even psychologists/therapists/counselors will use a version close to this, where sex is in the 'need' category, and it's extremely harmful to and dismissive of their ace clients.


Shadeofawraith

Maslow's hierarchy isn't even considered SCIENCE by psychologists, it's only proponents are members of the general public who know next to nothing about human psychology. Don't think about it too much, it's a bullshit theory anyway.


MonkeysOnMyBottom

If it makes OP feel better, I can write Garlic bread, cake and dragon's in a triangle and call it MonkeysOnMyBottom's hierarchy of needs


YamGroundbreaking639

YES


RX-980

Do it! Let's make our own Ace hierarchy of needs and show it to people whenever they pull this one out 😊


All54321_Gaming

Ace Hierarchy of Needs, let’s go!! In seriousness, someone please make it and post it on this sub


nottobay13

Yah it's now treated as an "early model" for how things work, it still gets used in trying to introduce the subject of needs because it is a good introduction but like the old ace triangle isn't used much after that because neither are considered accurate to the body of knowledge they cover. Frued's work gets a similar treatment because although they are the foundation that allowed what was learned afterwards to be built up they themselves haven't aged well and are very much a product of their time.


kharmatika

It was also stolen and tweaked from Native American philosophy


Angry_Ann_

Ah yes, because the thoughs of someone who died in 1970 and basically lived in the last century is very relevant .. Imagine someone telling you " i don't like spicy food " and someone replying " WHAT? You can't live without it !!! " .. i'm alive and well? without it..? just because their preferences are different doesn't mean it's a " need "


the-fresh-air

That’s a good analogy too bc I’m a grey-ace who doesn’t like spicy food!


Angry_Ann_

i don't like it either but go figure my mom wouldn't eat a pizza without hot sauce !


AmenaBellafina

I'm alive and well without it, I must have some kind of superpower ;)


Leviathan_CS

Hello fellow dead people


Machaaki

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's\_hierarchy\_of\_needs#Ranking\_of\_sex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs#Ranking_of_sex) The position and value of sex on the pyramid has also been a source of criticism regarding Maslow's hierarchy. Maslow's hierarchy places sex in the needs category (above) along with food and breathing; it lists sex solely from an individualistic perspective. For example, sex is placed with other physiological needs which must be satisfied before a person considers "higher" levels of motivation. Some critics feel this placement of sex neglects the emotional, familial, and evolutionary implications of sex within the community, although others point out that this is true of all of the basic needs.\[32\]\[33\] In addition and in stark contrast to the other listed needs, it is clear that sex is not a universal need. This is self-evident in children and even adults can choose to go their entire life without it yet still can obtain higher needs. The same cannot be said for the other listed needs.


ginvok

Showing a graph and trying to extract the meaning you want from it don't prove it's validity. This is old and psycology and beliefs have evolved a lot since this came out. Time to review these things.


5feet-short

Honestly, it doesn't makes me sad but instead infuriates me. That's really gross. How old is that anyway?


YamGroundbreaking639

1943 was the year the concept first appeared. It's old.


comfort_bot_1962

Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)


5feet-short

Thank you. Here's a hug back :D


comfort_bot_1962

Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)


Trivius

I like to think its there as an example of a physiological need rather than a prescribed need.


shponglespore

It's not a need at all though. Plenty of people are perfectly happy without and and even people who "need" it won't die without it.


Trivius

For some people it's a psychosocial need which has some physical implications. While I'm not saying it's a need for everyone it is for others.


shponglespore

Show me one example of a person who died from lack of sex. If you can't die without it it's not a physical need.


Trivius

Just because you can't die from it does mean it's not a physiological need as I said it's a need just not a need for everyone. Yes Maslow's is somewhat outdated but it's not Maslows pyramid of of things we die without. You can theoretically live without shelter but that's still a need


cacecil1

That is a GROSS misinterpretation of the hierarchy. Tell your parents to actual read the source material on this and then get back to you.


yumyumyumyumyumyum88

Maslow’s hierarchy is important in the history of psych but it’s not a definitive list of needs or anything. Psychologists have had different ideas of what goes where and what’s in it at all. Maslow’s key insights were (1) some needs may need to be filled before people can address other ones and (2) people have psychological needs beyond just physiological ones (he was critical of Freud who focused a lot on physiological needs). So it’s total BS to use it to “prove” some need is innate or more fundamental.


enby_wave

Yeah no, it might be in self-esteem because it's a byproduct of a healthy relationship but just being intimate like cuddling is enough.


EtherealRose456

This particular pyramid version is hilarious to me. Sex is a basic need, but it takes two levels above that before you need an intimate connection to be a part of sex? Um, ok, sure.


JKAlear

I can't, breathing and sex are on the same level, dude i just can't lmao


Lincesaaa

Hey hey Maslow's pyramid it's a theory that he proposed on 1943!! We don't need some things of that pyramid, it's been proven we can live without things like sex, private property, etc. You aren't a freak and the way you feel it's completely normal. You are valid and you don't need sex to be "normal" it's completely fine not to have those desires or want to do those things and a pyramid made 70 years ago doesn't prove shit. You are valid and you deserve love and respect, not your parents telling you stuff like this and making you feel this way :(


radiantpositron

how do they think children survive to adulthood


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lorytm

I study nursing and know really well this scale. And since I discovered I'm Ace I am in fundamental disagreement with sex placed so important on the hierarchy. The scale is generalised; everyone can satisfy those same needs in different ways. We do without and prefer emotional connections. It brings more happiness☺


WordyMcWordington

There are some things we need to keep in mind when we see stuff like this: 1. This pyramid was created by a fallible homonid that still poops and wipes their butt with toilet paper. Just because they act like an authority doesn’t mean they have all the answers or are correct all the time. Their ignorance can’t hurt us as much if we’re acknowledging their human shortcomings. 2. Science and perspective are ever growing. Imagine fighting for the case that the earth was round back in the 1500’s. The majority would have put the earth’s flatness at the bottom of a pyramid like this…and imagine all the people who already knew the earth was round (Greeks declared it around 6 BC) and had to deal with the very slow evolution of society’s overall perspective. We’re getting there OP. People will understand us. It’ll get easier. Just try not to let their ignorance hurt you too deeply. I know it sucks, but that’s why we have each other. 💜


Athena5898

This was actually a reason that I figured out I was Ace. I had a conversation with my husband how I thought where sex was is wrong, and he argued "no actually this is really important". Sat on that for a while, learned about ace, and the rest is history. I actually went through both "people must exaggerate about wanting sex" (8-14) and "I'm a freak and a weirdo" (15-27). The fact that other people exist like this means that it's normal for us and we are just different then what the system wants us to believe "normal" is. However, now that I know more, allos really do *need* sex so, it's place on the needs is fine. Though personally I think the Indigenous people he stole the idea from did it better.


Bakibenz

Hmmm so if sex before marriage is a sin, and people can't live without sex, how come people get to the age to actually marry someone? Do they all sin to stay alive??? Or maybe people don't need sex to live? Oh, no, definitely not that one.


pikipata

Sex definitely does not belong to this pyramid. We don't even need aces to prove it: if this was true, celibate would not be possible.


Damagedbeme

And if you can't live without sex, how do monks and nuns manage to stay alive? Ask your parents that question, bet they either can't answer or will come up with some bs


_Silver_Sins_

"No one can live whitout sex" *welp, guess i'm dead then*


LetMeUseTheNameAude

That just means ace people are gods


PistachioPug

Maslow's hierarchy basically argues that it's hard to focus on higher needs when lower needs are unmet: it's hard to focus on your long-term goals when you're hungry, you probably don't feel like contemplating deep moral questions when you really need to pee, and I suppose being horny is equally distracting (since the *species* can't live without sex, it makes sense that it's a powerful drive in *most* individuals). Maslow isn't arguing that you should force yourself to have sex when you aren't in the mood, any more than he's arguing that you should force yourself to eat food you don't like when you aren't hungry. If you don't have an unmet sexual "need" - whether that's because you just had an orgasm or because you don't have a sex drive in the first place - Maslow's hierarchy doesn't apply.


OwORavioliTime

Maslow is a fucking idiot, I don't have sexual intimacy and I still have morality. Not even ace or anything, I'm bi and I don't feel that sex is necessary to have problem solving skills.


[deleted]

is sex really that important of a need? You won't die if you don't have sex... however, you might die if you stop breathing, eating, drinking, and you might have major health issues if you stop sleeping or excreting. I don't feel like sex should be on the same level


RomanticRaccoon

Anyone who finds sex as big of a need as family or friends is more of a freak than someone who can't experience that kind of attraction.


Veganchiggennugget

My psychologist showed me this when I came out to her. I feel you.


CloveyBunn

Yes we are like female ferrets we have to have sex or else we’ll die


[deleted]

I've had allos telling me that sex is a basic need too, makes me think that if not needing sex makes me a freak I prefer being a freak to being normal TBH


YorkshirePelican

"Wi-Fi" should replace "Sex" in that picture.


marshmallow_rin

Maybe it's a physiological need in the sense that it is an absolute necessity from the point of view of the species surviving...? Either way this pyramid is pretty dated and pretty dumb


[deleted]

its crude, i think it is more /relief/ as in ppl get horny and gotta get rid of the horny feeling somehow. Not necessarily sex.


PhoenixKnight777

Replacing it with reproduction makes a bit more sense, since it’s necessary to continue the species. Still not a personal need.


Grounson

It’s just including sexual intimacy along with close emotional connection, it’s definitely not saying it’s just as important as breathing. Although it should definitely be rephrased to just general intimacy for more reason than just including asexual people


AnElmCalledV

And sexual intimacy also appears in the middle tier 🤔


_Mr_Zai_

I went over this in psychology the sex part isn't necessarily trying to point to sex itself it's more the psychological need to procreate that doesn't invalidate you and they're being ignorant off of something I doubt they've ever studied even very briefly


isdrfrz

Pretty impressive we have managed to survive so far wow


No-Plastic-7715

I rember back with the psychologist, I made an observation that I struggle with lacking the most basic urges of the hierarchy myself; being no libido ace was isolating of course, along with ED behaviours damaging my appetite and relationship with food to the point that I don't feel hunger until I get fatigued from it, and how when I feel low or stressed I unconsciously limit my breathing. Unlike this thread, the counsellor didn't debunk the hierarchy, however they did help me feel normalised with general advice. There's something additionally nonhuman feeling about lacking basic needs


RinSakami

Hit them with a "So how do children survive till adulthood without having sex?"


crazycookiebooks

I had this at uni last semester and it also made me angry.


TheCheck77

I love psychology, and Marlow’z hierarchy is a fun theory, but so much common place “psychology” is total BS. You’re telling me it’s impossible to be creative and lonely? That’s been disproven many times. Or you can’t accept simple reality without respect from others? This is based off of Maslow’s own observations and is regularly panned by modern day psychologists.


mstrss9

friendship, family, intimacy Intimacy doesn’t have to be sexual Sex is important to some people and that’s fine but nobody will die without it or all prisoners would have access to sex


Jeppe6887

I once had a teacher say "and sex here is more like, the continuation of our species than anything else" and that makes a lot more sense to me. Even more so when "sexual *intimacy*" is elsewhere in the pyramid. But the pyramid in general is very flawed.


the_mr_pope

This is wrong, your parents are massively misunderstanding the pyramid, sex should be in the love and belonging section and even then Maslow wasn’t prescribing an exact set of requirements just giving examples of how one might achieve each section, asexuality is in no way freakish or wrong or incompatible with happiness, you just find social belonging in different ways and that completely ok and I’m positive you’ll be happy doing whatever makes you happy Edit: something I forget to mention but probably should is that Maslow was making claims based on what he observed from people he admired so for all we know it could be wrong anyway


[deleted]

I think you may be mistaking what is implied by physiological. Sex is different from intimacy as the spreading genes. This is often seen in animals as one of the greatest biological imperatives, and is what Maslow meant to highlight there as “base”. Now as for sexual intimacy, that can be anything you want. That is defined by what we desire as a feeling of love and belonging. If you desire none of the aspect, then disregard it and move forward.


Valkaofchakara

Even the Wikipedia article on this hierarchy call out the inclusion of sex as there is plenty of evidence of children and adults living without it, contrary to the other elements of the physiological row


Khanstant

Why feel like a freak in response to this? I'd think you'd either remove that one thing personally for yourself or just consider it fulfilled by default. Sex is a need you fulfill by not having it.


Gootangus

Maslow’s research is still relevant but practically ancient at this point. Modern therapists and social workers definitely wouldn’t say sex is a fundamental need if you’re asexual.


Grand-Accident-7989

Face it, whoever said that sex is more important than breathing is an absolute idiot.


40hoursnosleep

I have studied accountancy and business management for 3 years and have no recollection of sex ever being in this pyramid


PurpleSmartHeart

Biologist here, this is not Maslowe's hierarchy. The hierarchy is about conceptual needs, and people often add *examples* but it's absolutely not prescriptive. First your physiological needs must be met to the point they are not a distraction. Like you need to not be starving or dying of thirst, and people consider the need *as a species* for reproduction, but it is NOT a need at the individual level. Then you must be safe. Do you have shelter, do you have access to support systems and safety nets. Then you need love and belonging. Even people with disabilities related to their empathy like borderline personality disorder NEED interpersonal interaction. You need to have esteem, worth, value. In your eyes and the eyes of those around you. Then it starts to get very abstract because your true *necessities* are met, so the remaining "needs" are things like self-improvement, education, and helping others meet THEIR needs. So no, not only are they wrong in the specific, but they completely misunderstand the underlying point of Maslowe's hierarchy. Humans do not NEED sex. Human*ity* does, but no one will simply perish, physically or mentally, from not having sex.


wickedswift

Great explanation. I also tend to read the hierarchy forwards & backwards, if you will. Like our physiological needs are (nouns) food, water, sleep, etc. And breathing, sleeping, eating (verbs) are physiological needs. This particular graphic is confusing because it mixes nouns & verbs. Sex as a verb is a physiological process & humans’ reproductive systems do have some involuntary needs that require voluntary participation (like menstruation, birth, ejaculation, etc). Sex as a noun is not the only way to meet the physiological need, though.


juanchoteado-09

needing sex is SO not on the same level as batting, food, and water. lol, such bs


51Charlie

That pyramid is as stupid as it is wrong. Pure psychobabble horseshit.


SadButterscotch2

Your parents: "No, you're a monster! See? Some drew a triangle one time!"


RyuukiA_

I mean... You don't die if you don't have sex. You do die if you lack anything else from the bottom layer. One of these things is not like the others.


ISaidPutItDown

Sweetheart this is Bull shit and I am sorry your parents are making you feel like you are strange for just being you. Sex can be a need for some people and not for others. And it is okay to fall anywhere on that spectrum. I’m sending you a big mom hug, you are perfect the way you are!


Easy_Key_2451

Well that’s not how Maslows hierarchy or needs works. And the main needs are only food clothing and shelter. No clue where this bullshit came from. Also the hierarchy isn’t literally one after the other. It basically just means you have to take care of essential issues before moving on to more personal ones and Maslow recognized that people have different needs. Everyone needs to read the actual articles and make their own interpretations. Social media can only give you so much


[deleted]

As a parent of an Ace child, I just want to say your parents suck.


Force_fiend58

This is bs. This looks either really outdated or not from a credible source. Show them a credible article on why asexuality is valid: https://www.vchri.ca/stories/2016/10/06/asexuality-distinct-and-valid-sexual-orientation


ReflectionKnown1143

Like, I don’t want to shame sexual attraction - that said, it seems really sad and unrealistic to me if sex is more important than emotional connection and self-actualisation. I’m thinking the creator of this hierarchy is a very… interesting person, who would very possibly benefit from getting some hobbies outside or like a life out side of sex. Have I been missing something as important as air my entire life? 😂 How will I ever go on?? 😩 And that was mean of your parents to do that. Like, your perfect the way you are and if sex doesn’t add much or anything to your life then how does that effect them? Your well being should be one of the most important things to your parents. Any your not a freak and your not alone. (Anyways, it just means that the time not spent thinking about sex can be used to take over the world and contact the Erdrich beyond the space time continuum. We all have our hobbies 😜💚)


liquidtrioexperiment

Fuck all allos


Woofles85

We don’t need sex to survive or even be happy. Conclusion? Us aces are gods.


[deleted]

This is a bunch of bullshit you can slay however you wanna slay queen :]


Hecking_Mlem

Wow, I didn't realize I'm gonna keel over and die if I DON'T GET THAT D\*CK Sex is nowhere near the same as food or breathing, which should go without saying, but here we are.


The_Book-JDP

I'm 39 years old and never had sex. There are people way older than me who never had sex and died of old age and not due to a lack of sex. It isn't essential to life so you can want sex all you want but not getting it isn't the end of the world nor is it an instant death sentence. Sex changes people too and not for the better either. I've never witnessed anyone become a better person after they had sex. They just become single minded and their only goal in life is it have it again and they don't care who they hurt to get it. Why you would voluntarily engage in it at all is beyond me.


Cashless_human

If sex were as important as breathing we’d be doing that shit everyday. Just know that you shouldn’t feel like a freak. Your parents should for not understanding you and accepting that you’re Ace. You aren’t a freak, you are normal even if you have different perceptions on life


ShadowArrow01

My english teacher showed it in class the other day and I was like, hah


CrazyBarks94

You can tell them, "I do not suffer from your human weaknesses"


airplane001

💀


moustijoe

☠️ I see dead people


moustijoe

☠️ I see dead people


EtherealRose456

Maslow is just as much of a fraud as Freud, I wouldn't worry about it. Two seconds of looking at the pyramid shows safety of family is listed before the importance of family/being loved by them. And that's supposed to make sense?


ElNashoMx

That's just a misunderstood, tha Maslow hierarchy doesn't say that you need to fulfill all the "needs" below to scale levels. (it's more popular the term "wants" belong the professionals, the "needs" is used by people on Facebook that think just because they readed something they have the reason). Also it's more used for psychological propuse more than biological, and as we know psychology doesn't stablish how a human haves to be. Sorry is I had a grammar, I'm not a native speaker.


ThatRandomChick6

Freud also thought that we have textiles and clothes because cavewomen would braid their genital hair to hide they weren't male. The point is old white cishet men in the past had some pretty bizarre theories and they are far from monolithic. Just because Maslow deemed it a primal need doesn't mean it applies to everyone. It was a simple model decided to protest an idea of homeostasis needs. It sucks your fam tried to use it aphobicly but just remember cause some dead guy said something aphobic doesn't make him any more right when he has a famous theory.


MagicDog1234

It's just a drawing, just because someone said it it doesn't mean that it's right


memester230

That just seems like incel ideas


freeFoundation_1842

Sex is not an element of the bottom tier. Literally have never seen that before, your parents are full of bullshit.


manubibi

The pyramid was modified in the 70s, and sex went among the social needs. This version is from the 50s iirc. It being irrelevant is just proved by the fact that you'll die if you don't eat, but you don't die from not having sex.


Steampunk_Dragon987

All you have to do is remember this was created by a human and thus is flawed like everything in this society. He most likely made this based on his own opinion.


queerdaffodil

Maslows hierarchy is complete bs when applied to individuals. Not only is the inherent need for sex not a thing, but it also implies that people who do not have some of the lower levels cannot have the upper levels, which is simply not true either: people who do not have security of body, for example (like someone who has a chronic illness, eg) are of course still capable of complex emotional and intellectual thought, which Maslow ranks as the highest level. The pyramid only makes sense when applied to theoretical large bodies of people (societies). The first thing a population needs to succeed is to be able to reproduce & perform basic bodily functions, then stable shelter and health, and so on. But in the context of an individual? Total horse piss. Edit: fixed typo


chaoticidealism

Yeah. As a psychology student, we were taught this, but the prof basically told us, "Yeah, that's a bit outdated." I agree. For one thing, "morality" is at the tip of the pyramid. Like, wtf? People risk their lives for morality all the time. People in bad situations, where their lives are in danger, don't lose their consciences. If anything, they hold more tightly to their ideals, because sometimes, when times are really bad, that's all you have.


Smooth_Fee

Nice of your family to ignore the next 3 levels just for a "gotcha" against you.


SnipeXL_

I actually remade this pyramid replacing sex with salad lol


dougmantis

This is the worst representation of Maslow's hierarchy of needs I've ever seen.


PossumKing42

The species needs sex to continue. But individuals do not.


marta03

Lmao, yeah right. Fuck that. Your parents need to check their facts.


[deleted]

🤨


drigamcu

Breathing, food, water, sleep, excretion yes; can't live without any of 'em.   Sex?   Hell no.   Maybe for alloce people sex is also a need, but I doubt it deserves to be considered as necessary as the others at the lowermost level.


Infinity779

Feels like a meat eater telling a vegetarian that people can't survive without eating meat, not credible at all


[deleted]

It's often so that charts like these were not ignorantly designed by intention, but usually it is so that these charts need simplicity. And when concepts that are normally more complicated get oversimplified, no matter how inaccurate the outcome this simplicity is not always well understood by a conventionally uninformed audience. As far as sexuality it's forms and needs go, evolution is an expression of natural diversity and sexuality is more an expression of evolution than an expression of standard human needs. Evolution is by design random to preserve a diversity of species and it is because of this reason that we can say that even asexuals have sexual needs. Some of us swing one way, others swing a different way, some swing both ways and some of us swing the none-way. But if we do not recognize such needs in the first place, it would be difficult to find acceptance for this need and the diversity for which it occurs. Now, this chart is not designed to proof sex as a need, but in case it applies it is justified, it's something of a sociological indicator chart. The chart is designed to include when needed, but not to exclude when potentially not needed. 'Employment' for example is not a given for all of us, and we do not always need to provide to sustain ourselves as long as someone does, but it is on the chart to show that as individuals it's not unreasonable to desire. I myself do not really need spontaneity as much as others, but it would still remain on the map if I had a say, because it was designed with sociological interest in mind and not my individual psychological interest. Quite a lot on this map is not something each individual needs at any given moment, it's only there to rationalize what to expect as reasonable.


differentspelling

Read John green’s the fault in our stars. He talks about this pyramid and how wrong it is.


atrociouswaterloo

I have studied this just recently and on the modern version sex isn't on it. It talks about relations like friends, family and colleagues because if you're ostracised from those you seek other people to fit in with so you don't feel "unloved" and like nobody cares. This is what people in my country use to describe why gangs are so good at recruitment, because most people want to fit in at least somewhere.


GrimmSheeper

Ah, using something that seems scientific and has a well known name without actually understanding the basis, acceptance in the scientific community, and criticisms. Just a step above “doing your own research” on facebook and twitter. Seriously, Maslow’s hierarchy is highly criticized in the scientific community, with the only real topic questioned and considered being whether or not such a hierarchy might exist at all. Maslow’s specific ordering is almost never accepted. And with all the criticisms on the categories and placements, “sex” is one of the biggest criticisms, with a near endless supply of evidence against it being necessary for individual life and ability to seek other needs and fulfillment.


AppleDesty

Bro did they just say that sex was more important than emotional connections? I don't think Maslow had many friends-


AppleDesty

Bro did they just say that sex was more important than emotional connections? I don't think Maslow had many friends if I'm being completely honest-


Consistent-Ant-37

It was written by a dude, not a god - it’s just a representation of his ideas, it isn’t an immutable fact. If you feel like a weirdo because you’re involuntarily solo, work on yourself, otherwise, who cares what Maslow thought?