Yowt! Yowt! *Begging posture*

*Sniffs air inquisitively*

Yee-yowt?

No.

Please! I'm still in need of help! Won't anyone help meh?

HELP MEH!

HELPHELP!

^ Okay...? :|

Yowt? <:(

Yeet!


YEET, YEET!



(Don't worry about it!)

...

>:O

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWW!

*Consumes your soul, wherewithal*

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee'! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE'?!

YEOWT!

Yeowt.

<:|

Help!


HELP ME!!

YOwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwt! YEOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! <:O

Yowt.

<:(

I agree. Exactly. This topic, of all topics, should not be applied *too* personally. It sort of got personal when he stated, "I don't particularly care for sex," or whatever it was precisely.

This topic, however, like all topics, *is* personally applicable on some level, but the discussion was quite clearly presented in a broad sense, defining actually what sex *is.*

Okay, let me try this again:

IF YOU DO NOT CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK, WHY ENTER INTO A DISCUSSION?

Have a look:

dis·cus·sion (dĭ-skŭsh'ən)
n.
1.
Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.

Having a discussion, well, pretty much requires caring. If you are so persistently close-minded as to think your view is so immutable as to not be affected or even discussed by others, then silence--silence is the only logical alternative. If you do not care and refuse to listen or discuss, then there pretty much is no point in saying anything, is there?

Can *I* not disagree with his view, but still want to know if there is, in fact, any logic behind it? Am I at fault for being interested in the topic, having encountered someone unwilling to discuss during a discussion? No. No, I am not.

I do not have a personal problem with his being against sex. In fact, I stated my comprehension of, but disagreement with, his view. Apparently, though, that is not allowed. My mistake.

Then. Why. Say. *Long pause* Anything at all. If you don't care, if you're not interested in others' views, it seems completely pointless to enter into a discussion about them.

Silence is a shortcut to tolerance? :|

No, I was defending my view, pointing out the apparent logical holes in yours, and soliciting a response from you. It may have been assertive, caustic even, but that was what it was. In response, you say, "you have your view, I have mine," failing to expand upon, let alone defend, your previous statements.

I was not saying all meaningful relationships must include sex; in fact, earlier, I advocated the exact opposite: That I prefer conversation over anything of that sort. My point was, you were dismissing the validity of sexual interaction--with a partner--saying you would much rather satisfy yourself in that respect. I found this strange, explained why and presented an opposing viewpoint, and awaited an attempt at a convincing response from you. No such thing, did I receive.

I actually believe in and have so far achieved abstinence until marriage, myself, but I can speak of these things conceptually or consider/discuss different viewpoints. So, in fact, I was imagining a viewpoint (playing devil's advocate, as it were) quite contrasting my own. *Shrug*

Riiiiiiiiight.

Why say anything at all, then, only to indefensibly dismiss anyone who disagrees? So pointless, commenting at all. At least I'm able to defend my view.

I've found that "putting things into" discussions is a rather effective way of having discussions, as a rule. So, I think I'll stick with that "technique" of debate, thank you.

You're trying to paint sex as only a means to reproduce. I would think that most people, including myself, would disagree with that postulation 100%. Why? Because if sex were meant solely for producing progeny, then why does it involve two individuals at all? Why aren't ALL FORMS of reproduction asexual? By the very fact that human reproduction (for example), by necessity, includes two people demonstrates some significance to a mutual involvement in that activity. Moreover, why is it pleasurable? Certainly, the pleasure gleaned from the experience might serve as a way to subsist a species, but, at the same time, seems superfluous in that some other, less satisfactory drive could provoke the activity.

In short, there is no purpose or advantage to "self-pleasuring" oneself; not reproductive, not to attain a fraction of the pleasure mutual intercourse offers. It seems completely misogynistic and relentlessly arrogant to only desire that form of pleasure, frankly.

Honestly, why even both with foreplay, following that logic? You might as well reproduce (pun intended) that stimulus, as well, on your own. Wouldn't that, too, be superior without some extraneous partner involved?

*Your shoes and socks were delicious*

Yeet!

YEET! >:O

So? You're not really boyfriend and girlfriend if there is not *something* physical--not necessarily sex--about a relationship. It doesn't have to be based on sex, but there should be some sexual attraction involved; otherwise, you are friends--platonic (read: non-sexual) friends, by definition. Quite simply.

YOWWWWWWWT! Yowtyowtyowtyowtyowtyowtyowtyowtyowt....

Well, you both have out-bizarred us all. Well done. Quite fitting.

What is the point of having a relationship with someone, then, if I may ask? How can a romantic--well, let's try heterosexual--relationship be so darn pragmatic? You might as well be brother and sister. There must be *some* physical element, I should think....