What is pleasure and why is such an important phenomenon as pleasure generally not studied as a unified science? The question of pleasure is one that is essential not only to human beings but in fact to persons generally.
The question of pleasure is traditionally subdivided into a number of different academic fields including sexology, economics, marketing, psychology, sexology, gender science and humanities of art including the academic study of music, literature, dance, visual arts, performance art etc.
Only one academic field is however devoted to the study of pleasure as such and that is sexology. There is a fundamental conceptual problem with sexology and that is the fact it artificially, needlessly, harmfully and unscientifically so phallocentrically conceptualizes pleasure in bisecting pleasure as pertaining to interpersonal physical intimacy and ambitions whereof from all other forms of pleasure.
That is surely not only problematic but severely socially and psychologically harmful indeed and although not openly misogynistic does this patriarchal social construct reinforce the patriarchal bisection of society into private and public in a manner as serving to reinforce sexual repression and thus nefarious ethnocratic patriarchal control over sexual conduct.
Even the terms “sexual” and “sexuality” are highly problematic in the sense of reinforcing this nefarious social construct of Eurocentric heteroculture.
What is thus needed is to create a wider science of pleasure to inclusion of fields of study as now covered by sexology. It needs be recognized that the current academic bisection into “sexual” pleasure and ostensibly non-sexual pleasure is purely performative as if it were even possible to separate the two.
A science of pleasure needs not merely be an interdisciplinary field but rather needs become a full science in its own right. This is essential because pleasure is systematically misunderstood in terms of being subordinated to pursuits of various academic fields.
The bisection of pleasure into “sexual” and ostensibly non-sexual is pseudo-scientific as expressive of structural phallocentrism. This however does not imply rejection of important insights of sexology but rather that sexology needs become broadened to the study of pleasure generally and that also inter alia requires a new name for the extended science. This of course is not to imply that sexology should be foundational for this wider extended science but rather that the study of physical intimacy would be one of many subfields as part of the integrated wider science of eugraphia.
This leads us to the question of sexual repression as producing sexual sublimation. Pleasure in being neurological is in a sense irrepressible as emotion generally can be variously socially expressed though varying cultural/subcultural expression. If we however undo the distinction between overt sexuality and sublimation of repressed sexuality as usually known as so called “culture” can we also help undo the nefarious phenomenon of structural repression of desire. Rather need we be non-coercively trained from an early age to come to intuitively desire virtue as noble pursuit of of pleasure itself for virtue if truly virtuous usually produces pleasure unless there are external factors that prohibit the production of pleasure such as fear, threat, violence, structural oppression and the like.
It needs be emphasized that sexual taxonomy is preposterous pseudo-science as considering that there is no such thing as exclusive orientation in intimate desire but only varying individual degrees in varying individual such orientation which furthermore usually change over time such as in terms of orientation towards age groups. Interpersonal intimate orientation can be measured statistically by means of psychometric measurement on a scale from 1 to 100 and such statistical measurement needs entirely supplant pseudo-scientific sexual “races”.
It needs furthermore be emphasized that the pseudo-scientific character of sexology as upholding the prejudicial cultural hegemony of ethnocracy and patriarchy. Sexual taxonomy is a Para-Christian barely “secularized” version of Catholic sexual morality which not even Catholic clergy abides by as most Catholic priests are homosexuals and/or pedophiles with the majority being pedophiles. It needs also be pointed out that nearly all Catholic clergy are trained CDF (Vatican intelligence services) intelligence operatives and as such hardly live in celibacy in being professional agents of seduction. Third-world Catholic priests furthermore openly have families and that is generally socially accepted in those societies. Priests of uniate churches such as the Anglican Catholic Church, the Maronite church and the Greek Catholic churches are furthermore allowed to marry and most do. Catholic official sexual morality is hardly natural or even “normal”.
Considering the pseudo-scientific delimitations of sexology as constituting discursive structural oppression needs the pseudo-science of sexology become disbanded and the study of sexuality rather needs become integrated into a wider science of eugraphia.