Their attitude toward human sexuality will change if they’re conscious of its implications. A comment like, “You want to dance, dance. You want to sing, sing. The two of you want to kiss, kiss. I think those are all beautiful acts…” would not be made if people acknowledged this.

This still doesn’t follow.
I know all sorts of things about why sex is an inbuilt necessity if the human race is to continue, and that desires leading to reproduction in my ancestors are the reason I’m here. (Good old Darwin).

Yeah, I realize people tend to not want to believe things that devalue their behavior, especially if that behavior is a large part of their lives like sexuality is for most people.

“whether sexual desire or the arguably more prosaic awareness that without children no-one had a duty to look after them in old age ”
Sexual desire is much more likely I would think; depending on how far back you go, it almost certainly is. I don’t think worrying about someone to take care of you when you get older is as much of a factor.

Their attitude toward human sexuality will change if they’re conscious of its implications. A comment like, “You want to dance, dance. You want to sing, sing. The two of you want to kiss, kiss. I think those are all beautiful acts…” would not be made if people acknowledged this.

This still doesn’t follow.
I know all sorts of things about why sex is an inbuilt necessity if the human race is to continue, and that desires leading to reproduction in my ancestors (whether sexual desire or the arguably more prosaic awareness that without children no-one had a duty to look after them in old age) are the reason I’m here. (Good old Darwin).
I know that some people have all sorts of dumb assumptions programmed into them by their upbringing about gender roles and all that tedious rubbish. But that’s not inherently related to sexuality, it’s all a stupid (or at least outmoded) social construct, which has as much to do with the orderly devolution of property and whether or not the “father” of a child is indeed the father of that child and whether it is therefore in their interests (or the interests of their genes’ continuation) to help care for that child.
Sexuality, actually, has damn all to do with it. So I’ll dance, I’ll sing, I’ll kiss, and I’ll carry right on expecting my man to do his bit bringing the kids up when we have ‘em.

Why not? You still haven’t explained what’s wrong with doing things for a desire to feel pleasure, other than to observe that it “sometimes leads to unreasonable actions.” Leaving aside the issues with your use of the term “reasonable,” this ignores the fact that many other things, like reasoning – even impeccably – from faulty premises also tends to lead to unreasonable actions, and they’re often considerably more destructive (starting world wars based the belief that one’s actions are in “defense” of one’s country comes to mind). Why single pleasure out – especially after having decided that suffering is bad, which seems to imply that happiness is good, and while sensual pleasure and happiness are distinct concepts the former manifestly contributes to the latter in psychologically healthy individuals.

I think I should make this far more clear; this is an ideal I’m talking about. I do not think humans should avoid sensual pleasure for the sake of basing their actions purely on reasons because, as you said, pleasure helps lead to “psychologically healthy individuals”.

In the case of 2+2, I’d clarify exactly what was meant by each element of the expression and then try it by, for example, putting two pebbles next to two more pebbles and counting how many I had. Or it could just be accepted as an axiom.

You’re making the assumption that humans can accurately make observations about the world. How is it reasonable to say human experiences give you an accurate depiction of reality? How does calling any assumption that appears self-evident an axiom meet the standard of being reasonable?

The problem here is that the definitions for “reason” you’ve offered as it applies to the definition of “reasonable” you’re using don’t seem to capture the way you’re using it. One can imagine cases where “reasoning” per any of the verb senses in the dictionary link you offered does not lead to the rejection of sensual pleasure as a motive or even affirms it (the observation that it manifestly contributes to happiness except under specific circumstances, for example), and thus seeking sensual pleasure would be “reasonable,” but you maintain that it isn’t. If it’s “unreasonable” because it stems from emotional causes… well, then so do all ultimate (as opposed to proximate) motivations, including that of decreasing suffering; again, why single out pleasure (or why single out any motivation as acceptably “reasonable?”)

If watching paint dry were demonstrably associated with improved emotional and physical well-being and general happiness, and an important element of healthy and fulfilling relationships, and people enjoyed doing so and felt a drive to do so, then as long as people weren’t pursuing it to the point of interfering with their responsibilities and social functioning, I don’t see what the problem would be. What bearing does being intelligent (sentient?) have on the matter?

I have to make “suffering is bad” an axiom, I think.
I don’t know how else to explain this more than I already have. Humans doing things so they can feel good, while perhaps necessary at the moment for their well-being, is irrational. In a hypothetical scenario, it could lead to someone killing someone else because it gives them a good feeling or someone cutting off one of their hands because it gives them a good feeling. Basically what I’m saying is that when the actions of an intelligent entity are subject to what gives them a good feeling, irrational behavior can and will result. Even if pleasure was only experienced by doing things that had “good” results, like eating and having children, in principal it’s undesirable for the actions of intelligent beings to be the result of neurotransmitters that give people a feeling of euphoria in exchange for certain actions.
I might not be able to explain this as well as I want to, but hopefully it makes sense.

I think pretty much everyone understands the biological function and origins of sexual attraction and the sex drive. What is it you think this understanding would imply that, by the failure of most people to demonstrate this implied behavior/attitude/whatever, you conclude that they don’t get it?

Their attitude toward human sexuality will change if they’re conscious of its implications. A comment like, “You want to dance, dance. You want to sing, sing. The two of you want to kiss, kiss. I think those are all beautiful acts…” would not be made if people acknowledged this.

Azkyroth, I’m just saying that humans, being intelligent entities, shouldn’t, ideally, base their actions off of a desire to feel pleasure (”sensual gratification”). That doesn’t mean I’m opposed to people feeling happy or good.

Why not? You still haven’t explained what’s wrong with doing things for a desire to feel pleasure, other than to observe that it “sometimes leads to unreasonable actions.” Leaving aside the issues with your use of the term “reasonable,” this ignores the fact that many other things, like reasoning – even impeccably – from faulty premises also tends to lead to unreasonable actions, and they’re often considerably more destructive (starting world wars based the belief that one’s actions are in “defense” of one’s country comes to mind). Why single pleasure out – especially after having decided that suffering is bad, which seems to imply that happiness is good, and while sensual pleasure and happiness are distinct concepts the former manifestly contributes to the latter in psychologically healthy individuals.

I dunno. That’s like asking me why I think 2+2=4 is reasonable. I’m not sure how to answer it.

In the case of 2+2, I’d clarify exactly what was meant by each element of the expression and then try it by, for example, putting two pebbles next to two more pebbles and counting how many I had. Or it could just be accepted as an axiom. The problem here is that the definitions for “reason” you’ve offered as it applies to the definition of “reasonable” you’re using don’t seem to capture the way you’re using it. One can imagine cases where “reasoning” per any of the verb senses in the dictionary link you offered does not lead to the rejection of sensual pleasure as a motive or even affirms it (the observation that it manifestly contributes to happiness except under specific circumstances, for example), and thus seeking sensual pleasure would be “reasonable,” but you maintain that it isn’t. If it’s “unreasonable” because it stems from emotional causes… well, then so do all ultimate (as opposed to proximate) motivations, including that of decreasing suffering; again, why single out pleasure (or why single out any motivation as acceptably “reasonable?”)

I think an example might get the idea across better.
Imagine people were born with an biological tendency to watch paint dry. Watching paint dry gave them a euphoric feeling. Although I wouldn’t be opposed to people watching paint dry since it helped them psychologically and gave them a good feeling, I would still say that, ideally, intelligent beings shouldn’t sit around watching paint dry just because it feels good to do so.
I hope that makes a bit more sense.

If watching paint dry were demonstrably associated with improved emotional and physical well-being and general happiness, and an important element of healthy and fulfilling relationships, and people enjoyed doing so and felt a drive to do so, then as long as people weren’t pursuing it to the point of interfering with their responsibilities and social functioning, I don’t see what the problem would be. What bearing does being intelligent (sentient?) have on the matter?

My modest proposal is that people do not view sexuality in the terms the currently do. They need to be conscious of the fact that it exists in humans because it was a useful evolutionary adaption.

I think pretty much everyone understands the biological function and origins of sexual attraction and the sex drive. What is it you think this understanding would imply that, by the failure of most people to demonstrate this implied behavior/attitude/whatever, you conclude that they don’t get it?