Theology of Pleasure
I promised long ago that I would tell you how and how well HUB Traffic pays for blog advertising. Good. Then, at the end of the fatal threshold I received the payment on paypal, with a really admirable precision. So, as I announced, I bought the razer headphones.
The only disappointment was the headphones, in the sense that in my opinion they sound MUCH worse than the USB headphones themselves (same brand) and this is unbecoming for the cost they have. I also didn't like the lack of blue color, but I don't know who it was due to: in order to have it quickly I bought it on Amazon Prime, which it delivers the next day. Gift for my daughter.
That said, I'm waiting for Google Ad to pay, and I'll tell you how punctual it is. I am undecided on the idea of suspending porn advertising on the blog: as far as I can see YOU LIKE it. Filthy.
Ok, let's move on. When I wrote that the definition gender is shifting from sex-reproduction to sex-pleasure, the most common reaction was that of someone who touched a taboo.
And with all the press that reads the mantra "pleasure today is no longer a taboo", it is surprising. But it's not at all.
It is not, because if you think about it, pleasure is a phenomenon known, described, sanctified or demonized, but there is one thing that human society has NEVER done: use it as a fundamental value.
The idea that pleasure cannot be a founding value for society has several reasons. The first is that all societies have stated themselves as a set of rights and duties, but they have never mentioned pleasure in any way, with some faint exceptions like Solon.
Here we can only indulge ourselves: the constitutions continue to define what are the duties and what are the rights, but why do we never see "pleasures" mentioned? What exactly is the relationship between state and pleasure, and where is it established?
If we think of the statement that "today pleasure is no longer a taboo", well, one would say that at least for politics, the state and jurisprudence it is. Otherwise its complete absence from the legislative field is not understood.
Even when we talk about the ethics of pleasure, we observe a strange thing: it is true that many thinkers have begun to quibble over pleasure, but their activity consisted in verifying if it is compatible with rights and duties.
Which tells us one thing: in the hierarchy of ethical and moral motivations, pleasure as a drive to act is always HIERARCHICALLY inferior to duties and rights.
Surprising, to be something that "is no longer a taboo", can't you find?
In the world of religion, pleasure is NEVER the founding reason for the believer's actions. There are rights and duties, but pleasure is never understood in either of the two, except to be mentioned among the forbidden things. Even the concept of "Paradise", which apparently indicates an extremely pleasant place, does not describe what kind of pleasures there would be. In short, in Heaven do we go around doing orgies and banquets and watching the movies we like? It seems that in the Islamic paradise it is allowed at least to touch the angels' ass, but it is a prize, that is something that is subordinated to the duties.
Interesting.
But even in the scientific world things are no better. When we talk about pleasure, the worlds of psychiatry and psychology have at least suspect attitudes. They read:
- Strange dichotomies between "pleasure principle" and "reality principle": you become an adult when you stop doing the most pleasant thing. Pleasure seems to be ipso facto an obstacle to the correct relationship with reality. Becoming an adult requires that pleasure be relegated to the background.
- Psychiatry has a whole list of "fetishisms", "paraphilias", "codependencies" and other things, and in all cases the pleasure is taxonomized into categories that suggest a fairly obvious negative judgment from the name. It is not clear why a guy who dedicates his life to charity is more fetishist than someone who devotes her to licking shoes.
- Both in psychology and in psychiatry, it is much easier to diagnose a disorder if the pursuit of pleasure is involved, than (for example) something that is considered a duty or a right. Hardly anyone will be called mentally ill because he loves to wear a uniform and hurt if he is a policeman, while the same choice in a sadomasochistic club is definitely "a symptom".
All this is at least strange.
Do you not find at least strange that "pleasure is not a taboo", and yet neither the legislator nor the psychiatrist / psychologist nor the theologian are able, to this day, to consider pleasure as a licit drive for our actions?
If I said that I chose to marry a given partner because of any factor not related to libido I would probably be understood, but if I mentioned any kind of enjoyment as a parameter of choice things would be different.
For example, if the question "why did you choose him / her as a spouse" one responds with things like "sensitivity", "intelligence", "understands me", all these things are considered good reasons to marry a person. "It makes me enjoy in bed more than any other" does not yet have the same treatment; you can say that you have married a person fascinated by his intelligence and it is ok, but you cannot say that you have married her because of the fantastic orgasms you have in bed.
And it is not a problem of language: sexual pleasure is NOT considered a good reason for an entire marriage, while intolerance or sweetness is. Interesting, because all the other pleasures follow the chain: if someone said he married X because X has {intelligence, sweetness, sensitivity} everyone would tell him that they are very important values in a marriage. Now we mention three pleasures: {sexual ability, excellent cuisine, aesthetic refinement}. Hardly anyone will consider this as sufficient to make that decision. "I married Carlo because his dick gives me orgasm like no other man" or "I married Marina because she is a goddess of anal sex" they look like statements that reduce the partner, diminish him to "mere sexual object" .
Interesting, but at this point we have to admit one thing: pleasure is still a taboo, and we talk about it a lot just to keep it at bay, relegated to a corner. It must not touch the juridical sphere except to fall generically into some abstract freedoms (but limited by law), it cannot be an essential function in the medical world: you cannot go to the doctor and ask for some substance / medicine to enjoy more in some way. Medicines serve to cure functional problems, but pleasure is not considered a function.
Neurologists are aware of the reward system, of course, but it is considered as a source of problems (normally addictions) rather than a function. If I go to say that I need a medicine that can make drinking beer more satisfying, no doctor will give me anything. Also because the medicine in question would automatically be called "drug" and defined as "illegal".
Some specialists consider for example that "I do not feel any pleasure" is a pathology, but for example "I feel little pleasure in" is not considered a functional problem, and therefore there are no "cures" for those who, for one thing, fail to enjoy the pleasures of alcohol.
How can being without empathy be a symptom of psychosis while being abstemious is not? The question is not a bar joke: it shows how the attitude towards pleasure is still much closer to the "taboo" than to the now normalized topic.
"I want an interesting work environment and I will choose the company where the projects are most interesting" is a phrase that makes sense today. Let's take the same thing and say that "I will choose the company that has the best cooks in the canteen and the most delicious dishes" instead it seems a weaker argument.
I could go on and on, but the point is simple:
pleasure is not assigned the consistency that serves to be the first (acceptable) cause of important decisions.
And this happens in all fields. There is virtually no important field of human existence in which "because it makes me enjoy" (any kind of enjoyment either) is considered as the basis for any decision.
Even the most "materialistic" philosophers never indicate pleasure as the ultimate goal: at best they indicate happiness as a push, or convenience or satisfaction, but pleasure understood as an exercise of an appetite in order to enjoy is not never examined among the thrusts. We can start from Epicurus and review all the less "Apollonian" philosophers, we also say all the "Dionysian" philosophers, and we will still hear of "will", "power", "ego", "happiness" and "selfishness". But when it comes to pleasure, none of these philosophers mentions pleasure as the achievement of some existential goal , except by abstracting it as "paradise", "happiness", "nirvana".
That then the pleasure can be a source of spiritual or intellectual elevation is among the things that I have not yet read by any philosopher: among the required practices there are asceticism, virtue, abstinence, prayer, logic, morals, study, reflection, meditation , will power, will and that's it, materialism, but I still have to read a philosopher who can tell me that fucking a lot or eating lots of good things or dancing music that you like can make you a better person.
Then following the discourse on Sexual Tradition, the reason why it will be difficult to achieve the disappearance of sex = reproduction in favor of sex = pleasure is that pleasure is given a lower value than reproduction. This step is seen as a loss of value; consequently, sex = pleasure does not recognize the strength needed to define sexual gender.
Obviously, a force is not a power: power can be denied or taken away, while a force remains that. If sex = pleasure has the strength to define new sexual genres, it will.
The problem, at most, will be the disorientation of those who find what is happening is impossible. And nothing is worse than one who observes reality and continues to say "but this cannot be true".
The social change caused by the transition between sex = reproduction and sex = pleasure is visible and is in progress. Many observe it and do not understand what force is pushing it, for the simple reason that they do not believe that the force involved is a real force.
In this case, they will soon know the cultural and social strength of pleasure.
And it will be an extremely violent time for them.
🙂