Reality of pleasure/pain

Hardly anyone is so dumb as to regret on his deathbed not having eaten some delicious chocolate cake fifty years ago because of having been on a strict diet; and hardly anyone sane will regret that he did not have sex or more sex a few decades ago. At that point, it wouldn’t be relevant anyway even if he did have it. Except for being penitential about it.
(A similar thought occured to Kierkegaard: the different views of a young man just starting out in life and a man lying on his deathbed. Once I find the journal entry, I will add it.)

Pain is positive, pleasure is negative.

Worse still, how is the sex act itself worthy of praise? All great cultures have seen sex as something “unclean”, admitted even by the Jesuit Augustin Arndt [bibelpedia.com] in his commentary on the Bible (Vulgate-German [archive.org]).

How long does sexual intercourse even last on average? It is questionable why it should be revered so strongly. People like to “show off” with hot wives. But how does that even work? She could be a real pain, a Xanthippe. Not only that, it could very well be that sex is seen as so important because in reality it really isn’t, and it isn’t even as pleasurable as many claim it to be. However, to not lose the one crutch most people cling to the strongest, they’ll simply lie about it instead. Trying to imply how great and important it is, and that everyone who does not get it is a loser.

Ranking women from 1 to 10 in terms of just looks gives away the sheer lust of those who make use of this ranking system; why is a 10 who is a prole a 10? So looks cannot be the only criteria.

Deriving one’s self-worth from outside, especially from women – this is hardly masculine. Seems rather fragile. That it might be satisfying to feel wanted does not disprove that it is not masculine. Some are envious of people fluent in Latin and Greek, or of great geniuses and their many incredible talents. Which I readily admit I am.

In the end, everyone knows that our vulgar modern world is nothing worth praising, and least of it is the sexual debauchery taking place in it. After all, even someone as vulgar as Roosh, who made a living selling decadent literature not only regretted his past “conquests”, but called our culture sex-obsessed. Which it is. “Casual” or “easy” sex is a sign that a civilization is in its death throes.

Let us not forget that most of our ancestors usually married once and were done with it. They also raised children. A working marriage might be something to be envious of; not the guy with a hot but mentally ill “girl” – most likely a prole girl anyway. Not that someone can’t be a good person due to his class, but I fail to see how a meaningful relationship or marriage can exist if one’s interest, temperament and character are too alien from one another. (Despite its flaws: Paul Fussell’s “Class” is a worth a read.)

Try grumpy old Schopenhauer for a change; or just read the Bible.

To quote Gómez Dávila:

Sexual promiscuity is the tip society pays in order to appease its slaves.

To liberate man is to subject him to greed and sex.

Sex does not solve even sexual problems.

In the end, there is no area of the soul sex would not succeed in corrupting.

When the modern consciousness suspends its economic routines, it only oscillates between political anguish and sexual obsession.

The 19th century did not live with more anguish because of its sexual repression than the 20th century with its sexual liberation.
Identical obsession, even when the symptoms are the opposite.

The problem is not sexual repression, nor sexual liberation, but sex.

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