[Topics]

“Getting lots of sex is praiseworthy!”

Written: 2019-11-11
Addition: 2022-04-26

Another imbecilic viewpoint: sex is natural and good and whatnot ’cause I say so. And those who do not agree are losers who are not getting any. But why not food as well? Because it’s easier to acquire? That’s the reason? What if someone bragged about driving a Lamborghini? Shallow? Yes. (And it is not as if you cannot buy and pay for it, either.)

Further, those denying that sex is not necessary for your own survival, that it is so important to have it are also quick to insult overweight or lazy people. But if laziness and the drive for eating are just as natural, why should sex be seen in any other way? Someone slacking away, another one eating one fast food meal after the other – where is the difference? In all these cases, people act on their natural (sinful) desires. And the wise men of the past, all religions that have at least a grain of truth in it—not to speak of Christianity itself—understood this. Even Chesterton did.


(2022-04-26): [Topic]

The reason, I forgot to add, is one’s ego, obviously. As a Christian, it seems not only as if sex is a punishment, but that God made sure most people are even more obsessed with it than with anything else. Apart from base and vulgar pleasure, it is, after all, tied to our ego as well. Trophy wives and other highly risible status crap. No one would bring someone into this world otherwise.


Says Gómez Dávila:

It is above all against what the crowd proclaims to be “natural” that the noble soul rebels.

It is impossible to convince the fool that there are pleasures superior to those we share with the rest of the animals.

We should ask the majority of people not to be sincere, but mute.

The majority of men have no right to give their opinion, but only to listen.

Depravity always arouses the secret admiration of the imbecile.

Dialogue with the imbecile poses difficulties: we never know where we harm him, when we scandalize him, [or] how we please him.

Our denouncing the imbecile does not mean that we wish to get rid of him. We want diversity at any price.
But the charm of variety should not prevent us from judging correctly.

Where he is easy to refute, as in the natural sciences, the imbecile can be useful without being dangerous.
Where he is difficult to refute, as in the humanities, the imbecile is dangerous without being useful.

Let us be careful not to call accepting what degrades us without any resistance “accepting life.”

“Escapism” is the imbecile’s favorite accusation to make.

Thinking corrupts the imbecile.

The imbecile does not discover the radical misery of our condition except when he is sick, poor, or old.

The modern world demands that we approve what it should not even dare ask us to tolerate.