Sexless love or loveless sex?

[Rin-chan]

Rin Chan, you would marry someone for sex whom you do not love?  The idea of being married to someone whom you don't love is unappealing to me, unless it is a business arrangement.

I said sexless love!!!!

I would rather marry someone I love and not have sex with them than have sex with someone forever that I don't love!!!

I'm sorry if that came out wrong

Rin-chan

Man, what is wrong with this generation?  Whatever happened to the 60s and free love?

If you're looking for the 5% wholesome Christian type then by all means you're playing it right.  Glad to hear you're not a slut though.. that's worse!  Me and about the oh I don't know 95% of other men want to "try before they buy."  Even my prudish brother who wouldn't let me take him to a strip club on his bachelor party (yes, I know BRTD.  I caught shat from the other guys in the party and asked what was wrong with him.)  knows this.  There has to be a happy medium.  Play hard to get, but too hard could hurt you badly with men.   

Thanks for the advice?   I'm not sure if it was or not lol  I'm glad I'm not a slut either.

Rin-chan

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty- question:

If you were talking to a woman at a bar, you have a decent rapport, she's moderately attractive, bought her a drink or two, shared a smoke, etc. and you find out  in the conversation she's a preschool teacher and blurts out "I think kids are soooo cute and I want a baby in the next 2 years."  And you have a shot with love and sex with her fairly quickly.  What would you do?

... Her place or mine?

The answer I wanted to hear.. RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I posed this as a hypothetical to you because this situation happened to me when I was a Cavanaugh's River Deck about a year or two ago.  Wouldn't have been an easy lay, but in terms of physical attraction.. yeah, I would have had sex with her. 

That's nice, but I am actually looking for a girl who wants to settle down and have kids.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What kind of guy gets in a relationship or deals with women at all if not to eventually have sex with them? That's the driving force behind all relationships.

Wrong, spoiled brat.

So, the girl you were so enamored with earlier this year had nothing to do with her looks? You were attracted to her personality, which you yourself admitted you didn't know much about.

Also, are you trying to join the group of Al, Bob, and BRTD? Is that the company you want to keep? Thanks for the unwarranted personal attacks, pal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh...who said anything about lacking physical attraction? What does that have to do with loveless sex or sexless love?[/quote]

Most people who are attracted to someone want to have a physical relationship with them at some point. It's called human nature.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're really going to play the class warfare game again? Look dude, I've already explained my family's life story. I didn't live a life with a silver spoon in my mouth. I grew up with my parents getting divorced (a nasty one at that, I was 7 when it started) and lawsuits among most of my family members. Yes, I've been blessed with a lot of material goods, but don't play all high and mighty. I've been given responsibilities. I've had a summer job since I was 16 because my parents/grandparents wanted me to learn the value of a dollar. That Mercedes I drive was in my grandmother's will who wanted me to have a safe car to drive. I don't need to explain this to a guy who is sometimes so judgmental that it's disgusting, but I will anyway. You didn't know. That's why I don't personally attack people here. Take a lesson from that.

And to rebut your statement, most relationships are made or broken with sex. Some people like you may not care about it or whatever, but that's you. Most relationships begin with a physical attraction, which usually means you want to have sex with that person. It isn't a hard concept to grasp. Even you are the same way. If that girl who was in your class wasn't somewhat attractive, you would've never made such a big deal to talk to you.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah. Girls are only good enough for you when you get to spike their drinks, right?
[/quote]


Do me a favor and spare us all of any arguments with BRTD, Bob, Marokai or whoever else in the future, alright? You're no better than they are when you decide to play the same games they do by hurling unwarranted attacks at people, and no more moral high road for you either.

[Keystone Phil]

What kind of guy gets in a relationship or deals with women at all if not to eventually have sex with them? That's the driving force behind all relationships.

Wrong, spoiled brat.

So, the girl you were so enamored with earlier this year had nothing to do with her looks? You were attracted to her personality, which you yourself admitted you didn't know much about.

...

Duke, I never said that looks have nothing to do with attraction or that they shouldn't have anything to do with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't help it if they finally make sense and have something in common with me. 

Unwarranted? Give it a rest, dude. You just called anyone that wants to "pal around" with girls f****ts. Spare me the lecture.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Duke, you're a blatant failure here. I admit in the post that you quote that physical attraction is not something we are supposed to shy away from.

Point out for me where I made the assinine point that attraction shouldn't lead to a physical relationship. Go. Now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I play class warfare when it is warranted. I have to fight insane arrogance with insane arrogance.

Spare me the sob story about you getting a Benz because it was "safe." I'm sure that's the tag you give everyone when you post pictures of it on the Internet. When people flaunt what they have, be ready to be called out for it. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I our divorce rate. How about you? Oh, and don't play the divorce card either. My parents are divorced as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Again, Duke, I never once said that physical attraction is a bad thing. You're twisting the argument around entirely.

I said that your attitude in your initial post, with no respect for true feelings towards people aside from a physical lust, is absolutely disgusting. You twisted that into me saying that physical attraction is bad and disgusting. I come to expect this sort of behavior from people that don't know how to debate points though.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet your comment about guys having feels for girls means that they're gay isn't an unwarranted attack?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Never thought I'd say this but:

Phil = FF

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

What kind of guy gets in a relationship or deals with women at all if not to eventually have sex with them? That's the driving force behind all relationships.

Wrong, spoiled brat.

So, the girl you were so enamored with earlier this year had nothing to do with her looks? You were attracted to her personality, which you yourself admitted you didn't know much about.

...

Duke, I never said that looks have nothing to do with attraction or that they shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Yet you decided to call me a spoiled brat and told me I was wrong when I said sex was the driving force behind most relationships. Am I right, then? My point was, all relationships begin with a physical attraction. Learning to love that person outside of the physical attraction is another component, but certainly isn't always the first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can't help it if they finally make sense and have something in common with me. 

Unwarranted? Give it a rest, dude. You just called anyone that wants to "pal around" with girls f****ts. Spare me the lecture.[/quote]

Did I specifically call anyone out? Everyone makes silly statements in posts. Neither you nor I are immune to it. The fact that you decided to specifically call me out and begin using the "you're a spoiled brat/rapist" argument is what's so pathetic about this. You're better than that. Do you honestly want to be the idol of BRTD? It's your choose!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Duke, you're a blatant failure here. I admit in the post that you quote that physical attraction is not something we are supposed to shy away from.

Point out for me where I made the assinine point that attraction shouldn't lead to a physical relationship. Go. Now. [/quote]

I don't recall claiming you made specific statements, but you did get all defensive at my, admittedly, somewhat sarcastic post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I play class warfare when it is warranted. I have to fight insane arrogance with insane arrogance.

Spare me the sob story about you getting a Benz because it was "safe." I'm sure that's the tag you give everyone when you post pictures of it on the Internet. When people flaunt what they have, be ready to be called out for it.  [/quote]

You seem to always bring it up whether it applies to anything or not. How does my class have anything to do with this thread? Where did I mention my car or my income level or anything in my initial post. You brought it up for whatever reason just to add a stinger to your post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I our divorce rate. How about you? Oh, and don't play the divorce card either. My parents are divorced as well.[/quote]

The sad truth is most marriages are broken because one side doesn't make the other feel good or whatever. People have quit trying to work through their problems and just split up to look for other fish. This thread isn't a debate on the divorce rate and why it's so high.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Again, Duke, I never once said that physical attraction is a bad thing. You're twisting the argument around entirely.

I said that your attitude in your initial post, with no respect for true feelings towards people aside from a physical lust, is absolutely disgusting. You twisted that into me saying that physical attraction is bad and disgusting. I come to expect this sort of behavior from people that don't know how to debate points though. [/quote]

Don't take anything so personal. That initial post was as off handed as a lot of the rest of the ones in this thread. If you honestly believe many of these posters are sharing their true and deep feelings with you, then you're living in a fantasy land. So what if I said what I said? I don't need you swinging the sword of moral authority and calling me some of the names you called me.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And yet your comment about guys having feels for girls means that they're gay isn't an unwarranted attack?
[/quote][/quote]

Again, people make offensive statements all the time towards groups of people. You're always going to offend someone. If I went around attacking people every time they made an offensive statement en general, then I'd say I had a problem.

Did I, in any way, target you specifically in my post? Did I call you out by name? Did I make a crack about your socioeconomic status, attitude, or anything else? Did I call you some middle class trash heap who lacks the balls to talk to anything with a vagina? No. No, I didn't. You know why? Because I don't know you all that well. I don't know your story, your history, or your life. I try to keep things here as impersonal as I can so I won't specifically offend or attack people. Do me a favor and give me that same respect. When have I ever targeted you before? Called you out? Used personal attacks in response to posts by you? I don't understand why anyone would care enough to attack someone specifically on an internet forum...

Never thought I'd say this but:

Phil = FF

Congrats. You are the company you keep, as the saying goes....

[Keystone Phil]

Yet you decided to call me a spoiled brat and told me I was wrong when I said sex was the driving force behind most relationships. Am I right, then? My point was, all relationships begin with a physical attraction. Learning to love that person outside of the physical attraction is another component, but certainly isn't always the first.

Duke, in all honesty, I think you have a minor issue with logic. What I said didn't contradict anything. I don't believe that sex is the driving force behind most relationships and, if it is, I don't think that that's right. That does not mean, however, that physical attraction is bad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So...you are allowed to make the "silly statement" but when I do it to you, you want to whine? Uh...right. Got it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Duke, what was sarcastic about your assumption that I think physical attraction is bad? I really think you need to brush up on your definitions. Maybe you can get a dictionary made of pure gold for Christmas this year!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I bring it up just as often as your flaunt it. You're right when you note that it wasn't brought up here before I made a comment just as the idea of someone being a f****t shouldn't be brought up because they actually have an emotional attachment to a female.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

You are that dense? Really?

You cast aside the emotional problems with your answer here and then go on about how divorce is caused by one side nothing making the "other feel good or whatever." And then you say that this debate isn't about the divorce rate. Honestly, Duke? Do you not see the line some of us are trying to draw, trying to point how why loveless sex might have something to do with the damn divorce rate?

By the way, I loved the "make the other feel good or whatever" line. Classic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Classive defensive argument. You claim that you weren't serious after you realize how silly you sounded and then revert to this idea that you don't need to explain yourself. Then why are you posting here, Duke? If you don't want to back up your assinine remarks, don't make them.

Don't blast me by saying that I'm swinging a "sword of moral authority." I know this idea may be foreign to you, Duke, but some of us with a spine stand up for what we believe. It doesn't necessarily make us holier than thou. I notice that your types don't like being challenged but that's your problem, not mine.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Offensive statements are made all the time towards groups of people" means it's ok. Uh, ok, great. So why did you throw a hissy fit when I made some about you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care if you didn't specifically target me. You made a stupid comment and you were called out.

Duke, I don't understand how I'm a "middle class trash heap" when I, without a shadown of a doubt, possess more class than you'll ever have. Need I remind you of your drunken outbursts on our fine forum after your basketball team lost? What did you call those fine young black men again? I can't seem to remember the word...

Also, a classy individual like myself doesn't justify rape. But since I apparently don't talk to anything with a vagina, I guess I wouldn't know if they enjoy that type of stuff. I bet they do, right, Duke? As long as they get a ride in the Benz, that is...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I only wish that someone can warn your friends...

[Tender Branson]

Option 1

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Yet you decided to call me a spoiled brat and told me I was wrong when I said sex was the driving force behind most relationships. Am I right, then? My point was, all relationships begin with a physical attraction. Learning to love that person outside of the physical attraction is another component, but certainly isn't always the first.

Duke, in all honesty, I think you have a minor issue with logic. What I said didn't contradict anything. I don't believe that sex is the driving force behind most relationships and, if it is, I don't think that that's right. That does not mean, however, that physical attraction is bad.

Alright, then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So...you are allowed to make the "silly statement" but when I do it to you, you want to whine? Uh...right. Got it.
[/quote]

Totally unrelated. If you made a general silly statement, then fine. Since you made it personal, I'll get involved. Nothing I said was personally directed at you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

Duke, what was sarcastic about your assumption that I think physical attraction is bad? I really think you need to brush up on your definitions. Maybe you can get a dictionary made of pure gold for Christmas this year! [/quote]

Sarcastic attacks don't win arguments... But nice one!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I bring it up just as often as your flaunt it. You're right when you note that it wasn't brought up here before I made a comment just as the idea of someone being a f****t shouldn't be brought up because they actually have an emotional attachment to a female. [/quote]

I never called anyone a f****t. I said that I have never met a guy that really wanted to just be friends with girls.... that was based on my personal experiences. You twisted that one around to be calling a bunch of guys f****ts, which I can't find in my original post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...

You are that dense? Really?

You cast aside the emotional problems with your answer here and then go on about how divorce is caused by one side nothing making the "other feel good or whatever." And then you say that this debate isn't about the divorce rate. Honestly, Duke? Do you not see the line some of us are trying to draw, trying to point how why loveless sex might have something to do with the damn divorce rate?

By the way, I loved the "make the other feel good or whatever" line. Classic.[/quote]

Again, I'm not here to argue about why our divorce rate is so high. If you are interested in the topic, there are plenty of articles written about it to keep you busy. I'm not divorced. I don't know truly why people get divorced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Classive defensive argument. You claim that you weren't serious after you realize how silly you sounded and then revert to this idea that you don't need to explain yourself. Then why are you posting here, Duke? If you don't want to back up your assinine remarks, don't make them.

Don't blast me by saying that I'm swinging a "sword of moral authority." I know this idea may be foreign to you, Duke, but some of us with a spine stand up for what we believe. It doesn't necessarily make us holier than thou. I notice that your types don't like being challenged but that's your problem, not mine. [/quote]

Haha! I don't have a spine? Really? I've been called a lot of things, but I've never been told I lacked a spine.... that's a new one!

Did you bother reading the quoted post that I replied to? Was ICE HOCKEY being serious in his response? I'm not all of a sudden backtracking. I knew I sounded just as silly as ICE HOCKY'S post. Here's a secret. I love to bait people here, especially BRTD/Al and the like. I know if I say certain things, I'll get a rise out of them and we'll argue about it for page after page. Considering the post I was responding to, though, I didn't think I would get much out of this one.

And before you accuse me of backtracking all over the place, this isn't the first time I've made a statement like this, waiting to see the reaction.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Offensive statements are made all the time towards groups of people" means it's ok. Uh, ok, great. So why did you throw a hissy fit when I made some about you? [/quote]

If you'd read, I said the reason I shot back is because I was specifically targeted. If it was a lofting statement directed at no one in particular, I would not have thrown a hissy fit. You know that! Don't play stupid.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't care if you didn't specifically target me. You made a stupid comment and you were called out.

Duke, I don't understand how I'm a "middle class trash heap" when I, without a shadown of a doubt, possess more class than you'll ever have. Need I remind you of your drunken outbursts on our fine forum after your basketball team lost? What did you call those fine young black men again? I can't seem to remember the word...

Also, a classy individual like myself doesn't justify rape. But since I apparently don't talk to anything with a vagina, I guess I wouldn't know if they enjoy that type of stuff. I bet they do, right, Duke? As long as they get a ride in the Benz, that is...[/quote]

Oh Lord. That statement was used as an example. I do not believe you are that, nor would I ever seriously call you that. You're a good guy on this forum, and I've enjoyed arguing on your side of a lot of issues over the years. Look, I tried to make it clear I'd never call you that. I was using antonyms of your swipes at me as examples. Don't play a victim. I made it clear I am not going to attack you personally.

And I'm dense? I tried to make it clear that that rape thing was a poor joke and I apologized for it. The only people that are dense enough to STILL harp about it are BRTD, yourself, Bob and Al. The rest of the forum seem to have moved on in their lives.

And oh, I'm so sorry for my outbursts. I tend to get passionate about my school's basketball like you are passionate about PA politics. Poor choice of words, yes, but I'm prone to that. I'm not pretending like I don't make my share of gaffes...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I only wish that someone can warn your friends...
[/quote]

Luckily you aren't the judge in those matters.

[Keystone Phil]

Totally unrelated. If you made a general silly statement, then fine. Since you made it personal, I'll get involved. Nothing I said was personally directed at you.

You made an attack. Just because it wasn't in direct response to one of my posts doesn't mean that it wasn't an attack on someone like myself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1) You didn't say that.

2) If that's the case, you live in a very sad world.

3) Just because that's how you've seen it doesn't mean that they're gay. You did say that they're gay and just like to shop with girls. Go ahead and deny that now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is one of the underlying problems in divorce, Duke. You don't want to admit it so you say that it's not related to the topic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have responded to his ridiculous posts both here and in the past especially on this topic.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also known as trolling.


 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Duke, you're playing the victim. You made a stupid remark, I responded and you went nuts about personal attacks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same to you.

[Scam of God]

Loveless sex. Procreation is man's sole purpose as a biological species.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

FÜCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!! *smashes beer can on forehead*

I think a few people around here need to start realising that this whole 'macho' notion of masculinity is just a societal construct; the values that society associates with being a 'man' are by no means all the product of biology.

Yes.

But it all sounds too educated.

I've had neither btw, so I won't comment on the topic of this thread.

[Scam of God]

Also, I find sex better when I'm not in love with the person. If I don't love them, I needn't focus on their pleasure and can instead work on getting myself off. And I don't need to be careful with them.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Loveless sex. Procreation is man's sole purpose as a biological species.

No.

Just say "No" to Biologicalism, Kids.

[Scam of God]

Loveless sex. Procreation is man's sole purpose as a biological species.

No.

Just say "No" to Biologicalism, Kids.

Do you hold with Darwinian evolution?

[JohnFKennedy]

Also, I find sex better when I'm not in love with the person. If I don't love them, I needn't focus on their pleasure and can instead work on getting myself off. And I don't need to be careful with them.

Don't worry, those blow-up dolls you buy off the internet can't get pregnant so you have no worry of any half-human-half-plastic babies any time soon.

[Scam of God]

Also, I find sex better when I'm not in love with the person. If I don't love them, I needn't focus on their pleasure and can instead work on getting myself off. And I don't need to be careful with them.

Don't worry, those blow-up dolls you buy off the internet can't get pregnant so you have no worry of any half-human-half-plastic babies any time soon.

Hey, don't blame me that my pragmatic approach to the topic offends your effete sensibilities. Most women are not so childish that they need to be held by the hand and told that they're loved in order to understand what pleases them.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Loveless sex. Procreation is man's sole purpose as a biological species.

No.

Just say "No" to Biologicalism, Kids.

Do you hold with Darwinian evolution?

Yes, as least as far it is reasonable. But for whatever reason the mechanics of evolution gave me choice and free will. I could hypothetically live as a hermit in a cave (if I could find a cave) and grow my own food till the rest of my days, or join a group of monks... though I suppose I would be "engaging in an activity which is socially beneficial and thus is rooted in the need for social togetherness as to propogate the search for mates..." and other such Evolutionary Psychology crapola. Me, the Mason of Ideas - other people's mainly, just a shifting a few bricks onto an ever-growing pyramid, is relatively free to have sex should I desire (and should other female person was willing...) - not let me be quite clear that this is not an "intellectualist" view, emotions are powerful and "the will" is often not, yes - but I myself, my concious self, has no awareness of "my function to procreate", while it is there I can override it if I wish, to suppose this our "purpose in life" simply because of our origins (and if the function is to reproduce, then do you use contraception?) in the evolutionary chain in being is simply pseudo-scientific nonsense.

[Scam of God]

Loveless sex. Procreation is man's sole purpose as a biological species.

No.

Just say "No" to Biologicalism, Kids.

Do you hold with Darwinian evolution?

Yes, as least as far it is reasonable. But for whatever reason the mechanics of evolution gave me choice and free will. I could hypothetically live as a hermit in a cave (if I could find a cave) and grow my own food till the rest of my days, or join a group of monks... though I suppose I would be "engaging in an activity which is socially beneficial and thus is rooted in the need for social togetherness as to propogate the search for mates..." and other such Evolutionary Psychology crapola. Me, the Mason of Ideas - other people's mainly, just a shifting a few bricks onto an ever-growing pyramid, is relatively free to have sex should I desire (and should other female person was willing...) - not let me be quite clear that this is not an "intellectualist" view, emotions are powerful and "the will" is often not, yes - but I myself, my concious self, has no awareness of "my function to procreate", while it is there I can override it if I wish, to suppose this our "purpose in life" simply because of our origins (and if the function is to reproduce, then do you use contraception?) in the evolutionary chain in being is simply pseudo-scientific nonsense.

There is no 'will', free or otherwise. The entire chain of events between thought-action is an illusory application of causality onto a process where no such thing exists. If you 'chose' to be asexual, this is simply something that you always would have done anyway, emanating out of your deepest nature - likely because you have been denatured, owing to some social more or another. Though the general purpose of life is to procreate, not all specimens are desirable from an evolutionary standpoint.

And I absolutely do not use contraception, unless the woman insists. It is not pleasurable to me.

[JohnFKennedy]

Also, I find sex better when I'm not in love with the person. If I don't love them, I needn't focus on their pleasure and can instead work on getting myself off. And I don't need to be careful with them.

Don't worry, those blow-up dolls you buy off the internet can't get pregnant so you have no worry of any half-human-half-plastic babies any time soon.

Hey, don't blame me that my pragmatic approach to the topic offends your effete sensibilities. Most women are not so childish that they need to be held by the hand and told that they're loved in order to understand what pleases them.

Oh, my comment had little-to-nothing to do with my 'effete sensiblities' as you put it; it was more a genuine doubt that any woman would really want to go near you.

On another note, it is good to see that there are those who are so perfectly deluded as to believe that everything is biologically determined.

[Scam of God]

Also, I find sex better when I'm not in love with the person. If I don't love them, I needn't focus on their pleasure and can instead work on getting myself off. And I don't need to be careful with them.

Don't worry, those blow-up dolls you buy off the internet can't get pregnant so you have no worry of any half-human-half-plastic babies any time soon.

Hey, don't blame me that my pragmatic approach to the topic offends your effete sensibilities. Most women are not so childish that they need to be held by the hand and told that they're loved in order to understand what pleases them.

Oh, my comment had little-to-nothing to do with my 'effete sensiblities' as you put it; it was more a genuine doubt that any woman would really want to go near you.

Well, let's see.





What do you think?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I bet you're a Christian. So typical.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm sorry but is that a woman?

[Scam of God]

I'm sorry but is that a woman?

I'm sorry, were you perhaps hoping to see a little lump where the vagina should have been?

Although, OTOH, I've also had sex with a transsexual. Not that I believe a perma-virgin like you would have any idea what one of those is.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm sorry but is that a woman?

I'm sorry, were you perhaps hoping to see a little lump where the vagina should have been?

A tumor?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Loveless sex. Procreation is man's sole purpose as a biological species.

No.

Just say "No" to Biologicalism, Kids.

Do you hold with Darwinian evolution?

Yes, as least as far it is reasonable. But for whatever reason the mechanics of evolution gave me choice and free will. I could hypothetically live as a hermit in a cave (if I could find a cave) and grow my own food till the rest of my days, or join a group of monks... though I suppose I would be "engaging in an activity which is socially beneficial and thus is rooted in the need for social togetherness as to propogate the search for mates..." and other such Evolutionary Psychology crapola. Me, the Mason of Ideas - other people's mainly, just a shifting a few bricks onto an ever-growing pyramid, is relatively free to have sex should I desire (and should other female person was willing...) - not let me be quite clear that this is not an "intellectualist" view, emotions are powerful and "the will" is often not, yes - but I myself, my concious self, has no awareness of "my function to procreate", while it is there I can override it if I wish, to suppose this our "purpose in life" simply because of our origins (and if the function is to reproduce, then do you use contraception?) in the evolutionary chain in being is simply pseudo-scientific nonsense.

There is no 'will', free or otherwise. The entire chain of events between thought-action is an illusory application of causality onto a process where no such thing exists. If you 'chose' to be asexual, this is simply something that you always would have done anyway, emanating out of your deepest nature - likely because you have been denatured, owing to some social more or another. Though the general purpose of life is to procreate, not all specimens are desirable from an evolutionary standpoint.

And I absolutely do not use contraception, unless the woman insists. It is not pleasurable to me.

But "my nature" is bounded by sociological, cultural and economic forces, there is no "innate nature" as such so much as how much I react to stimuli X to comes from outside of me...

But I assume then you add "then your reactions to the stimuli are part of 'one's nature', not the action- or thought-in-itself but the processes behind it, which are probably unknown to you - does anyone know why they do what they do?'

To that I will respond (from an evolutionary POV):
#1: If it is "my nature" to be asexual (and it's not btw, though it is certainly my nature to be timid) then would evolutionary function would this 'nature' serve? Or biological? Either there is some particular reason, presumably genetic, to explain the 'me-ness' of me and all else is illusion on behalf of my mental processes - thus my supposed 'asexuality', my 'timidness', my 'Xness' are thus innate and then I can't do anything about them, but then why as an Existential question? What purpose does timidness serve, asexuality serve... if all is just a hunt for the best-looking mates?

#2: Introspection and Thought can't merely be epiphenomen; my thoughts related to actions that I commit and my Introspection is often long, drearysome and on nothing in particular, it in-itself serve apparently no function. If it is an epiphenomen, then it seems "the blind watchmaker" has not done his job very well. ("or perhaps introspection is to help choose between mates"... no, garbage)

As for contraception, does she use contraception? If she does, then your invalidating 'the nature' as your say.

(Btw, JFK please respond to my earlier post)