Is it wrong to seek pleasure???

"I am an excitable person who understands life lyrically, musically, in whom feelings are much stronger than reason. I am so thirsty for the marvelous that only the marvelous has power over me. Anything I cannot transform into something marvelous, I let go. Reality doesn't impress me. I only believe in intoxication, in ecstasy, and when ordinary life shackles me, I escape, one way or another. No more walls." - Anais Nin

Anais Nin is a writer who wrote passionately about passion. Aborting all theories of what is "wrong" or what is "right". She discusses her passions and her yearning to feel passion without fear or ambiguity. It is as if she is putting a middle finger up to society screaming "take me as I am". Not fearing passion, but instead inviting it and all it's experiences, good and bad, in. After reading this quote from this brilliant writer, I started to wonder... is it wrong to seek pleasure?

What is so wrong about wanting to experience passion beyond being tied to others ideals? Why do those who choose to battle the "common" way of thinking become persecuted when they are only in search of personal enlightenment? Are all those who dare to think outside the box "heathens" or "whores"? What if they are just merely searching to experience life?...

Seeking pleasure almost certainly brings pain in the end because all good things do not last forever. This is truth. Pleasure does not equal fulfillment, but only temporary bliss. With that being said, it isn't hard to understand that those looking to seek a lifetime of pleasure only receive a life's worth of moments. Is it better to wait until you find the perfect representation of you in the form of the opposite (or in some cases same) sex to travel with you on your journey to pleasure to ensure the impact of less pain? In other words should one wait until they are married to start exploring? I say marriage because it is the common notion that marriage is a commitment of forever in a relationship.

I am starting to believe that sex before marriage is only considered "wrong" because the line between lust and love is so thin that it is almost impossible to receive an orgasm without catching a quick glimpse of what love could be. The feelings and emotions derived from a sexual experience (a really good one) are often so strong that logic becomes hazy. What was meant to be "just an experience" begins to feel like something you are willing to endure for a lifetime. This is the main reason why i oppose the theory of "friends with benefits".

I think that the "religious" believe sex before marriage is considered "wrong" because they insist their logic is supported by the Bible. (I say insist because I believe the Bible, like all other writings are for the reader to interpret not be told). In their eyes, marriage vows that you can only love one person, and that is whom you should lust for. Those feelings, that lust, should only be for the one you love and your passion should be suppressed for the common good.

I am truly interested in is the feelings connected to sex. Is this the feeling that the "pleasure seekers" search for? The feeling of bliss and peace that comes in the form of an orgasm. Is that where the fears of the "upright" reside? In an orgasm that makes your mind, heart and body (if only for one second) become one with the world? All senses experiencing at the highest level. All control lost from your grasp as you do nothing but simply feel. Does the lost of control equate to a fear of pleasure?

What makes this all so difficult for me to comprehend is that once orgasm is reached, reality slowly settles back in between the heavy breathing. What a person might have thought was enlightenment becomes just another name on a list of lovers.

Words passionately spoken between lovers in the heat of the moment are hardly remembered after. I've come to know that that is the sum of lust.

The thing that separates love from lust is the words passionately spoken between lovers, when in love, still lingers afterward in the form of a touch, a kiss, a smile.

I believe that lust is just the out of body expression of love, when in love. When not in love, lust is just a sneak peek of what could be. It makes one yearn to discover and conquer the love they were so lucky to have had a glance of during sex. But sex is not love and love is not sex. Not completely inseparable, but far from being identical.

*Editor's note: I struggled writing this blog because I found myself debating morality with myself. I would like to be known as a free spirit, but I cannot entirely agree with those who are. In my experience pleasure and pain, just like love and sex come in pairs. In both cases you can experience one without the other, but the experience is lack luster. I don't believe that there is a "wrong" or "right" in this issue. Anais Nin was someone trying to make the most of life and it's experiences by seeking "the marvelous". That was her way of dealing with life. In a lot of ways I understand her yearning for more than what is offered, but I cannot agree with her methods entirely because in the end she did end up heartbroken by her many lovers. But she did not regret nor did she feel shame. She just lived.