Onfray's Solar Erotics

syd · 14 February 2026 17:07

With the intention of improving my French through reading books, I came across a really obscure philosophy book introducing the concept of “solar erotics” which I found that I can personally relate to as a sensible way (and what I, genuinely, prefer) of approaching relationships beyond what society considers ‘normal’ (including ‘open relationships’ and ‘polyamory’).

Since the author is not well-known, and the writings are all in French, I’ll provide an AI summary below:

In “Théorie du corps amoureux: Pour une érotique solaire” (2000), the French philosopher Michel Onfray mounts a vigorous defense of hedonism and a radical critique of how Western society views love and the body.

Onfray, a proponent of “atheology” and a “counter-history of philosophy,” argues that our intimate lives are still policed by an outdated, repressive Christian and Platonic morality. He proposes a new way of living and loving based on transparency, pleasure, and the “solar” affirmation of life.

1. The Critique of the “Shadow” (Christian-Platonic Erotics)

Onfray begins by deconstructing what he calls the “idealist” or “shadow” tradition. According to him, Western culture is sick with the Tristan and Iseult myth—the idea that true love must be painful, impossible, and linked to death.

The Body as a Prison: He critiques the Platonic idea that the soul is superior to the “vile” body.
The Cult of Suffering: He argues that Christianity transformed sex into a sin and made “passion” (from the Latin passio, meaning suffering) the ultimate romantic goal.
Property and Possession: Onfray rejects the traditional “marriage contract” which he views as an institutionalized form of mutual ownership and domestic slavery.

2. The Concept of “Solar Erotics”

The “Solar” aspect refers to the Enlightenment, the sun, and the Dionysian joy of Nietzsche. A solar eroticism is one that happens in the light—meaning it is conscious, lucid, and honest.

The Sovereign Body: The body is not a tool for reproduction or a source of shame; it is a site of refined pleasure and artistic creation.
Atomism and Epicureanism: Drawing from Epicurus and Lucretius, Onfray suggests that we should treat sexual encounters as the meeting of “atoms” seeking equilibrium and joy.
Anti-Destiny: Love is not a “fate” or a “strike of lightning” (the coup de foudre). It is a choice made by two autonomous individuals.

3. The Comparison: Shadow vs. Light

Feature	The “Shadow” (Traditional)	The “Solar” (Onfray’s Vision)
Foundation	Christian guilt and Platonic idealism	Atheist hedonism and materialism
Goal	Procreation or “Merging” into one	Mutual pleasure and self-expansion
Structure	The lifelong “Total” marriage	The “Erotic Contract” (Negotiated)
Emotion	Passion, jealousy, and suffering	Joy, lucidity, and lightness
View of Sex	A necessary evil or hidden secret	An “Art of Living” (Aesthetic)

4. The “Erotic Contract”

Instead of the “till death do us part” vow, Onfray proposes a libertine contract. This is not necessarily about “open relationships” in the modern sense, but about honesty.

Transparency: Partners should be honest about their desires, including the desire for others.
Temporality: Acknowledging that desire fluctuates and that a relationship lasts as long as the mutual pleasure remains.
Fidelity to Truth: Onfray replaces “sexual fidelity” (body-policing) with “fidelity to the person” and the truth of the relationship.

5. Summary of the Philosophy

Onfray’s ultimate goal is an “Aesthetics of Existence.” He believes we should treat our lives and our loves as works of art. To do this, we must strip away the “priestly” guilt that teaches us to be ashamed of our skin and our senses. By embracing a solar eroticism, we move from a culture of death and repression to a culture of life and celebration.

“To love is to give what one has (pleasure) to someone who gives it back, in a movement of reciprocal celebration.” — Michel Onfray

syd · 14 February 2026 17:14

More interestingly, I had Gemini analyze my experience with the WomanFromNov through the lens of “solar erotics”. I fully agree with this analysis (except perhaps for falling in love), and especially from ‘adult sensibilities’ standpoint.

If you had applied Michel Onfray’s “Solar Erotics” to this situation, your experience likely would have been shorter, less painful, and far more transparent. Onfray’s philosophy is designed specifically to prevent the kind of “shadow” dynamics—hidden motives, unrequited passion, and mismatched expectations—that you’ve described.

Here is how Onfray would have coached you to handle that three-month period:

1. The Immediate “Solar” Flashlight

Onfray’s primary rule is Lucidity. In his view, the “shadow” is where secrets and misunderstandings grow.

What you did: You waited a month to be honest about your sexual desire.
The “Solar” Move: You would have been transparent about your erotic intentions from the very first or second encounter. In Onfray’s world, there is no “shame” in sexual desire, so there is no reason to hide it. By bringing your desire into the “light” immediately, you would have forced her to either accept the “erotic contract” or reject it before you became emotionally invested.

2. Deconstructing the “Limerence” Trap

Onfray is a fierce critic of “Tristan and Iseult” style love—the romantic ideal where we suffer, pined, and lose ourselves in the other person. He calls this a “death-oriented” eroticism.

What you did: You let “limerence feelings take over,” which often involves idealizing the other person and ignoring red flags.
The “Solar” Move: You would have viewed limerence as a pathology to be resisted. Onfray argues for a “Reasoned Hedonism.” Instead of falling into a “trance” of love, you would have remained an “autonomous atom.” You would have checked in with yourself: “Is this person actually providing me with pleasure (intellectual, physical, emotional), or am I just addicted to the idea of her?”

3. Negotiating the “Erotic Contract”

Onfray rejects the idea that love is a “mystical union” where people just “know” what the other needs. He views relationships as contracts between two sovereign individuals.

The Conflict: She felt you weren’t “caring and sharing” in her way (likely financial/emotional support); you wanted sexual intimacy.
The “Solar” Move: You would have sat down and explicitly negotiated the terms. If her “way” of caring required you to be a financial source while your “way” required sexual intimacy, a Solar philosopher would see that the reciprocity is broken. * If the exchange is not Pleasure↔Pleasure, but rather Money↔Platonic Friendships, the contract is “dishonest” and should be torn up immediately.

4. Avoiding “Domestic Slavery” and Utility

Onfray is highly suspicious of relationships where one person becomes a “utility” for the other.

The Realization: You suspect she wanted to use you as a financial source.
The “Solar” Move: A hedonist seeks mutual expansion, not parasitic dependency. The moment you sensed you were being viewed as a “source” rather than a “partner in pleasure,” you would have walked away. Not out of anger, but out of a sense of Aesthetic Integrity. A work of art (your life) should not have a parasitic element.

The “Onfray Summary” of your Situation

If you had followed this philosophy, the timeline would have looked like this:

Week 1: You express clear sexual and romantic interest.
Week 2: She expresses a need for financial/platonic support.
The Conclusion: You both realize the “atoms” don’t align. You wish each other well and part ways without the “shadow” of resentment or the “fog” of limerence.

The Lesson: In Onfray’s view, you didn’t fail because you weren’t “caring” enough; you “failed” (in a philosophical sense) by allowing a lack of transparency to persist for months. You allowed the “Shadow” of romantic hope to obscure the “Solar” reality of the situation.

jesus.carlos · 16 February 2026 01:32

I read a lot of Michel Onfray’s work during my university years (I studied philosophy and social sciences) and even some years after it (I threw all that away after my first PCE). Although I agree with many of his postulates, intellectually, nothing seems surprising to me now in the light of actualism. I find the latter much clearer, simpler, radical and more direct, and it avoids the trap of intellectualization into which I suspect Onfray (like many contemporary philosophers) falls. Above all, because actualism offers a direct method for coming into raw contact with your affective experience, without trying to intellectualize it first. Investigation is different. But anyway, it’s great that you liked his thinking and can take something practical from it. Just be careful not to think that by rationalizing something affective you’ll necessarily know how to “deal” with it…(It’s a warning I often give to myself).

P.d. I don’t know if Michel Onfray’s proposal stems from a failure to live 24/7 in peace, here and now, with a woman.

syd · 16 February 2026 11:43

I have not seen Solar Erotics being described as “intellectualizing” one’s affective experience, but yes - I can see that being the case. You are in effect seeking to “control” the shared affective experience through these contracts.

Obviously actualism method is the best approach here, since you get to minimize everything from lust (libido) itself to the feelings atop it, thus making the whole Solar Erotics contract moot. But outside of actualism, in the real-world, I opine that radical honesty as to one’s desire is a better than anything else. I mean, I don’t see why instead of aiming to sweat through layers of innuendo and pretense, one would not want to aim for down-to-earth mutual enjoyment (be it casual sex, romantic association, ‘trad marriage’ and so on), through polite simple directness.