I've written other articles on the existential status of sex (see the list below), so my overall view unfolds in them, and it's an ongoing question I explore.

What I'm assuming in this article is that we're internally divided and thus inherently hypocritical. To say that we ought to integrate our sexual impulses into our civilized pursuits is like saying politically that we ought to be centrists, that the best policies lie between the extremes of liberalism and conservatism. Maybe that's so in certain respects, but the rule looks lazy and otherwise dubious to me.

We have little choice but to integrate our sexuality and thus to be hypocritical (given the contrast between our public and private lives), since we lack the technology to propagate our species without resorting to the primitive sex act. Or rather, we have that technology, but we've hardly scaled it up to serve everyone. And the lower social classes have few great pleasures other than sex.

Sure, we should be the best version of ourselves. And is that version a centrist compromise between animality and personhood (encultured higher cognition), or a more austere, transhuman version that evolves beyond animality as much as possible? It's sort of an open, philosophical question.

Sex is fun, but don't you feel the least bit childish defending your right to have "fun"? Isn't it almost a misnomer to speak of an adult having "fun"? Fun might be something we outgrow along with childhood naivety. That's not to say adults should work all the time and have no private life. But hobbies, games, recreations, and so on are more than just fun for adults. Rather than just being amusing, they're stimulating in sophisticated ways that include the tragic alienation that comes with higher knowledge and experience.

Certainly, intelligent people can have sex. But can they be intelligent while they're having sex, or would intelligence in that context miss the point?

https://benjamincain8.medium.com/list/the-comical-sex-act-94798d4577f1