Wrong. Maslow listed sex as a basic physiological need alongside food, water, and shelter. It's always been one of thr most heavily criticized aspect of his theory. And, he was forced to back pedal on a lot of it.
Simon said the same in this sentence: "When we’re hungry, feel unsafe, have no shelter — when any of our other basic human needs is frustrated, we’d expect to feel on edge, depressed or unable to think straight."
When any of our OTHER basic human needs is frustrated.
That word 'other' puts them in an equivalent status.
Romance and friendship are not basic human needs. I'm not saying g they're not needs, but the phrase 'basic human needs' has a certain connotations to it, you need it to survive. It's a basic requirement of basic survival.
And no, less sexual frustration would not make the world better for women and children. That's an absurd argument. Men's violence against women is not tied to sexual frustration. Some of the most violent men in the world have gotten laid regularly. Ghangis Khan comes to mind. Hitler had a very loving relationship ship with Ava. Alexander the Great. Look at the femicides from the past year. Very few were because of sexual frustration. The men who murdered their wives and girlfriends had regular sex. With those very same wives and girlfriends they callously murdered.
Timer had dozens of wives, concubines, and mistresses. Sex whenever he wanted it. He still slaughtered millions. Ivan IV had 6 to 8 wives, although the church only recognized 4. He like to poison his wives, that's not why they called him "the Terrible" though. Mao, that old dog had 4 wives and countless mistresses. He actually had a cult of personality that got him lots of sex. 40 to 80 million dead. Vlad the Impaler's intense love for his wife was part od thr inspiration on Dracula. They were known to be pretty hot and heavy for each other. 40 to 100 K dead. Killed one by one. Caligula was into both men and women, so even on campaign, he was sexed up whenever he wanted. He too, is estimated to have butchered thousands. The Assyrians were known for two things in context of the article. Copious amounts of literature left behind about romantic and erotic love, what would today be classified as love songs and building the first empire based on iron weapons, hard calvary, and sheer terror. See the Bible.
Jesus and the apostle Paul lived celibate lives. As did Ghandi. They were men of peace. Isaac Newton and Leonardo da Vinci both died as virgins. As did Miguel Cervetus. Nikola Tesla celibate his whole life. Lenny Kravitz has been celibate thr padt nine years, since his last serious relationship ship ended. None of these men are known for being violent towards women. (Ghandi did not like women though, apparently) Although the Catholic church has been under much deserved fire for hiding and protecting pedophiles within the priesthood, that doesn't negate that over the centuries scores of priests have served the church, keeping their vows of celibacy and promoting peace. That is generally true of all holy men across all faiths.
Some faiths require celibacy. Shakers are known for their commitments to a peaceful life. As are Quakers, though celibacy isn't a requirement to be a Quaker.
Are we going to claim that all these men had zero sex drive? Because we know that's not true by their own words.
So this notion that male sexual frustration drives violence against women and children is nonsense. A very basic jaunt through history demonstrates the absurdity of the argument because history shows us unequivocally that men with the most sex have consistently been the most violent and men who lived celibate lives have been the most non-violent and dedicated to peace.
Time and time again.
It's just an excuse to abuse women and disregard our right to bodily autonomy.
