How to Think More About Sex: Sage sex advice from a philosophical polymath

This book manages to be both profoundly awkward and deeply enlightening at the same time. Ever wonder why we feel so much shame about something that is supposed to be natural? De Botton tackles this head-on, confronting contemporary taboos with a level of grace you don't often see in the 'self-help' genre. The chapter on Renaissance art and how it used sexuality to highlight lofty principles was a highlight for me. It completely reframes the way you look at attraction. Personally, I think the 'School of Life' series is hit-or-miss, but this one is a definite hit. It’s informative without being dry. It’s short. It’s punchy. Most importantly, it makes you feel significantly less 'weird' about your own internal life. It’s about time someone spoke about the existential dread of the sex drive with this much honesty. Truly a must-read for the modern adult.

Wow. I didn't expect to feel so seen by a philosophy book. De Botton's description of sex as a communion of our 'polluted sides' is probably the most accurate thing I've ever read on the subject. We spend so much energy trying to be respectable, and sex is the one place where we are allowed to be 'dirty' and still find welcome. That thought alone is worth the price of the book. The prose is elegant and the insights into fidelity were particularly helpful for me. It’s a quick, entertaining read that manages to confront some very heavy contemporary taboos without being crass. To be honest, I think everyone should read this just to realize they aren't as 'weird' as they think they are. It’s a deeply empathetic work that stays with you. It’s definitely my favorite in the School of Life series so far.

As someone who usually finds philosophy books too dense, this was a breath of fresh air. De Botton has this unique way of taking something as messy and frantic as human desire and placing it under a calm, clinical light. The truth is, we spend so much time feeling guilty about our 'polluted sides,' but this book argues that these kinks and urges are exactly what make us human. It’s a relatively quick read, but the ideas stick with you long after you close the cover. I particularly appreciated the compassionate tone he takes when discussing the difficulties of maintaining desire in a long-term marriage. Some of the suggestions regarding pornography censorship felt a bit extreme and idealistic, admittedly. However, the core message about sex being a 'promise of happiness' rather than just a physical act is genuinely illuminating. It’s an engaging, witty look at why we are the way we are.

Finally got around to reading this, and I gotta say, the chapter on the 'mundane realities' of relationships hit home. De Botton is spot on about how choosing a sofa or educating children can slowly kill the sexual spark. He writes with such a sparky, engaging style that you almost don't notice how radical some of his ideas are. He views sex not as a domesticated impulse, but as a force of nature that we should approach with caution. That perspective is quite rare today. While I didn't agree with his stance on censorship, I found his suggestion for a 'new kind of pornography' with artistic merit to be a fascinating thought experiment. The book is compassionate and relevant to anyone struggling with the friction between love and lust. It’s not perfect, but it’s a very informative and unique perspective on human sexuality.

The chapter on whether 'sexiness' can be profound really changed my perspective on physical attraction. De Botton argues that our attraction to someone’s 'cute bum' or 'nice lips' is actually a promise of a certain kind of happiness, which is a beautiful way to think about it. His writing style is incredibly engaging and he has a knack for summarizing complex feelings in a single, witty sentence. Not gonna lie, some of his cultural criticisms about the porn industry and Natalie Portman are a bit strange. He gets a little bogged down in his own theories toward the end. Still, the book is a great tool for anyone wanting to think in a different light about their desires. It’s informative, it’s quirky, and it’s surprisingly relevant to the 'social awkwardness' of modern dating. A solid four stars for the arresting thoughts alone.

Pick this up if you want a short, punchy essay that won't take more than an afternoon to finish. It’s a bit of a ditty, really. The title is slightly misleading; it’s more of a meditation on the *philosophy* of sex rather than a practical guide. I found the sections on how sex liberates the self to be quite compelling. He has a way of turning the profane into something lovely. However, the second half of the book takes a turn into some pretty grim territory. He basically argues that we are all doomed to disappointment and that our sex drives are 'cray' monsters we can barely control. Some of the diagrams in the 'School of Life' edition are also unintentionally hilarious. It’s an interesting look at our culture, but don't expect it to solve your relationship problems. It’s more about opening a dialogue with yourself.

The title is a bit of a bait-and-switch, but the content inside is still quite charming. It’s less 'how to think more' and more 'how to think differently.' De Botton is excellent at pointing out the absurdities of our sexual lives. He captures that 'existential dread' we feel after a random hookup perfectly. However, the book is very much centered on the male, heterosexual experience, which limits its reach. To be fair, he acknowledges this is his own perspective, but it still feels a bit narrow at times. I enjoyed the 'Homework' bibliography at the end—it’s a nice touch. Overall, it’s a smooth and elegant read that adds up to a little less than you want it to. It won't change your life, but it will give you some great talking points for your next dinner party. A decent, light-hearted look at a heavy topic.

After hearing so much about De Botton, I found this volume surprisingly disconnected from actual human experience. Look, the writing is undeniably smooth, but he spends far too much time in his own head. He categorizes sexual experiences into these stereotypical, Hollywood-esque boxes that don't reflect any reality I recognize. One minute he’s talking about the 'sweetness' of oral sex, and the next he’s advocating for a state-mandated ban on pornography so we’ll all go back to reading highbrow literature. It’s pretentious. The logic is often circular, relying on naturalistic fallacies to justify why relationships get boring. I felt like I was getting a 'birds and bees' talk from a very sophisticated, very depressed uncle. There are some arresting thoughts scattered throughout, but they are buried under a mountain of shaky arguments. It adds up to much less than the title promises.

Not what I expected from a supposed philosopher, frankly. I found the arguments here to be a frustrating mix of reductive Freudian tropes and questionable evolutionary psychology. To be fair, the prose is elegant, but the substance is lacking. De Botton seems to think he can solve the 'problem' of sex by intellectualizing it into oblivion. He treats our deepest, most private urges like a math problem to be solved by a shy teacher who has never actually left the library. His take on adultery is particularly bizarre, suggesting we just need a 'failure of imagination' to stay faithful. It felt elitist and wildly out of touch with how real people actually experience intimacy. If you want a book that uses Boticelli paintings to explain why you feel empty after a hookup, this is for you. For everyone else, it’s a pass. A total disappointment.

Truth is, this felt more like a therapy session for the author's own hang-ups than a guide for the rest of us. De Botton seems obsessed with the idea that sex is inherently shameful and repugnant. He uses these grand, sweeping absolutes to explain away complex human emotions, which felt incredibly reductive. 'X is because of Y,' he claims, with almost no evidence to back it up. He isn't a psychologist, and it shows. The book is full of these boring attempts at humor that just don't land. I found his constant references to Godard and Boticelli to be a bit of a 'look how cultured I am' flex that didn't add much to the actual discussion. It’s a pathetic attempt at explaining human behavior that fails to challenge any conventional values. If you're looking for enlightenment, you won't find it here. Just a lot of pretentious navel-gazing.