I have read your comment a few times. I feel like I am missing something.

Making a logical case for a visceral emotion, such as horniness or anger, seems pointless. The emotional states arise from a set of biological responses, but a person winds up hungry or angry or horny in the fire of the moment. If I could argue myself out of being angry or horny, I'd be a happier person. Instead I "take it outside" when I'm angry or masturbate when horny. I relieve the emotional strain so I can resume sanity.

I had always run on the assumption of the biochemical urge for sex. Those that are not interested in sex will simply not have it and thereby not make it any father in the gene pool because they'll have no offspring to pass that trait.

Until I got married, I never even thought of making a logical case for sex. Now I sometimes have to explain to my wife that sex would be a good idea at time X, as it would help us synchronize. However there is also a deeper point: we both want to have sex, but we have let other aspects of life ruin the mood repeatedly. So we actively choose a moment and see what happens.

You stated

"if there was no need to have sex, there would be far less

[sic]

stressful people."

I agree, but that misses the point. The gonads drive endocrine production, create the urge to go on, push for success and make stress to create that need.

I feel like I'm trying to explain a sunrise. Even if I do it, I'll never puncture the sheer awe of seeing the sun come up over the horizon and knowing it kindles something inside me.