I guess I wasn't necessarily thinking the entire duration of a life in my original post, but that's a good question. If you say that "to presuppose that a human can not go for a while without sex and still be happy is nonsensical" then I guess I'd wonder how long "a while" really is. Would it depend on the person? I'm not talking asexuality here, either, but maybe simply lack of experience? You might not miss what you never had.

As for extrapolating an extreme from abuse/disease/injury, I think there's some level of pertinence there. These cases do happen, and it's rather grim (to me, anyway) to say that because someone is paralyzed from the waist down, or their spouse is paralyzed, they can no longer lead a happy life. Of course, in that case, it would not necessarily be a CHOICE to be sexually inactive, but the outcome would apply to the broad question of "an entire life without sex."

Of course the answer to the "how long" question would depend on a individual person.

But "lack of experience"? How did you come up with that one? If "you might not miss what you never had" were true for sex, then why the heck would anyone become sexually active in the first place, after living the first part of their life pre-puberty without any sexual experience?

It is debatable that someone who ends up paralyzed due to accident is living a "happy/fulfilled life", but in any case, this doesn't fit your original criteria, because this was not a choice.

As to the spouse of a paralyzed-and-sex-act-incapable individual, you seem to have a very narrow idea of what their choices are, but I see many possibilities that do nor require life-long celibacy.

Celibacy is for poor people. Ergo, the question is transformed: can poor people be happy?

As to the spouse of a paralyzed-and-sex-act-incapable individual, you seem to have a very narrow idea of what their choices are, but I see many possibilities that do nor require life-long celibacy.

I'm not sure I understand your objection. You can't, in a very real sense, miss having sex if you've never had sex. You might want sex, but that's something different. I was hypothesizing that you could go on for a longer while wanting (while never having had) sex than you could missing it. I don't know if that's really true, though, just a hypothesis. :)

Yeah, I realize that we never quite agreed on a definition for "sexually active." I think someone asked the question earlier in the thread and I never addressed it, because I was conflicted how to answer. Part of me thinks you're right about the fact that you're not truly celibate if you're masturbating to porn or whatever . . . which maybe is why I think that you're not truly being faithful to your spouse/partner if you do that. That's my own opinion, though, and one that I realize is likely to be in the minority. I guess I can only say that, looking at it another way, it doesn't seem you're "sexually active" in as full/true of a sense if you don't have a living, breathing sexual partner--so not AS happy/fulfilled in your sexual life. Does that work?

Sure.. but its not normal and is either the result of a problem with your endocrine system (extremely low hormone levels .. etc..) or mental trauma.

Self preservation and procreation are the driving factors for human beings.. sex drive is part of our evolution because it drives the species.. develops adaptation etc..

Probably unpopular, but I totally agree, I'm sure there's exceptions.

I've read, through meditation, it's possible for a man to feel free or a woman to feel full of love without sex. It seems like this would be the exception.

I think peope who have neither of the problems I mentioned and claim they are happy or fulfilled without a sex life are liars who probably just cant get laid and use celibacy as their excuse for their complete lack of social competence with the opposite sex.

For mammals in general, the babies need a long attachment to the mother while it grows and learns how to live. This is a high cost for the mother, and any single mom will be severely challenged if no help is available. So the demand must be met by some strategy. Ungulates generally rely on the herd, dogs on the pack, and bears on the great strength and wisdom of the mother.

Humans use the mate/partner to help manage the time and energy needed to raise the kids. The partnership of two adults is enough to get by. They can share jobs, and either can work while the other is tending the children. On the other hand, more than two is complex and confusing, so it's generally not done.

...
Actually, from a biological perspective, humans evolved more around the group taking care of children, rather than just the "mate/partner." More specifically, if you look at how bonobo populations behave; prehistoric human females likely mated with multiple males, thus ensuring that they would have multiple providers and protectors for their offspring.

You might be correct, the "extended family" idea worked really well for me.

But never never never forget: bonobos are not human, and we are not bonobos.

Yeah, they're just our closest-related relatives, with whom we share roughly 98.5% of the same DNA.

Yeah, they're just our closest-related relatives, with whom we share roughly 98.5% of the same DNA.

...
But they also do not have the same number of chromosomes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M