People are saying this aberrant attitude towards relationships likely means he's closet gay. I think it's more like he sees himself as a warrior-monk for whom sex must be 'sublimated' in order to 'achieve the highest good'. Otherwise, sex for him is "purely utilitarian," for propagation of the species, which is decidedly
not what its primary purpose is, as Laura's been
explaining recently. He may fall under Cleckley's
Caricature of Love as one who 'hates women'. He's certainly afraid of them, or strongly resents them.
He's just still too young to have the necessary life experiences, and vocabulary, for him to be able to eloquently state his position. Instead, he utilizes brute caricatures that drive emotional reactions in his audience, due to their minimal context and wide applicability.
Furthermore, matter sublimated often yields sublime essence. There is something to be said about intercourse as not only an end itself, but also a means towards an end. To those who see intercourse as a means for propagating a species, it's still a tool. For those who see it also as means for forming a stable and meaningful relationship, it's still just a tool. For an innumerable and compounding assortment of ends to which intercourse can serve as a means, it's still just a tool.
For any tool is just the culmination of examination and creativity sunk into the object for a particular purpose. Yet still, that tool is only as functional as the dexterity and carefulness of the craftsman's hands which wield it. A given tool of said quality, in the miserly hands of any craftsman, will only produce work that is befitting appreciation of its aesthetics attributable to it -- namely in others who share in the particular aesthetics of the work. However, the purpose of the work will only be as just, as the intent put behind making it.
That said, there is a difference between desire, and appetite. Desires can be approached through a variety of means, much akin in matters of love between: your partner, your children, your profession, your interests, et.c. - interchanging per your aesthetic preferences in finding the ideal experience in life to not only witness yourself, but also to share with another. Appetites are something else, as they essentially seek to fill that gnawing hole of desolate meaninglessness that is often experienced in one's being, but usually not identified properly. This is the error that moderns make.
So Nick is not sublimating his nature properly. He fails to address his appetites, by denying their existence, along-with mandating some notion of righteous sanctity in the assortment of his preferences. His appetites thus bubble-up through different means of expression, which is why there are many problems in his behavior. With that, his desire of wanting to be a creative expression that contributes to public discourse is subverted. This subversion of desire, compounds with his denial of appetites, and it propels him in such a way that is not only easily steered by another, but it becomes dangerous to himself. He's essentially in the withdrawal stage of drug addiction.
You do not beat drug addiction by refusing it outright. Instead, you recognize the harm that it does to your person, so that your conscious ego, and subconscious machinations do not fight with each other, and your own being. Only then, will the drug of appetite no longer taste, or feel so good, and is easily forgone.
