Sensuality is everywhere in our texts. Sometimes it is a positive thing, and other times it is bad or dangerous.
It was animal wisdom that drew the first man from his duty; it is still the same animal wisdom today that serves as a midwife to every sin.
The instinct resides in it, and this instinct is the voice of God, the will of God for it. What it does according to this divine providence prevailing in it - and it does not do anything else, it cannot do anything else - is good, and everything from which this instinct holds it back is evil. The animal does not go wrong, it only has one nature that it can follow, should follow. So not humans. He should choose what is good out of free choice and a sense of duty and avoid evil; He should also do justice to his sensual nature, not out of sensory stimulus, but out of a sense of duty.
That is why he has the sensual and the divine in him; it must often resist the good of its sensuality, the evil often appear charming to him, so that for the sake of his high divine calling, with the free energy of his divine nature, despite his sensuality and never out of sensuality, he may practice the good and avoid the evil. That is why the voice of God does not speak in him, but to him, what is good and bad, and this voice of God speaking to him finds contradiction in the sensuality that becomes loud in him, as soon as this sensuality expresses itself independently, unaffected and unguided by his divine nature. The divine voice breathed into man, the conscience, as its messenger we recognized shame - only admonishes man in general to be good and to avoid evil; but what is good and what is bad for man can only be heard from God's mouth.
Man was not placed in the paradise of the earth in order to satisfy his sensual nature with the pleasures offered there; לעבדה ולשמרה, he was called there to serve God and his world; this service is his task and only for this service was he allowed to enjoy the fruits of paradise. The animal may therefore only examine everything in terms of its individual nature, it is only there for itself. But man is there for God and the world, and should also joyfully sacrifice his individual nature to this higher determination.
It is incomprehensible to the animal, even to the cleverest, how a person insensitively bypasses the most beautiful, charming, best enjoyment. - אף כי אמר אלהים, "and even if God said so" this beginning of the speech already shows us humans in conversation with animals. Man had already emphasized the prohibition of God as a reason for non-enjoyment. "And what if God said it now ?! Do you therefore have to follow? Isn't the instinct in you God's voice? If the enjoyment is bad for you, why did he give the pleasure the stimulus and you the drive? clearly said yourself that this pleasure and you are there for each other? Isn't this voice his earlier, clearer voice? First God creates the pleasures and you with the desire for them, and then - should he forbid you everything? "
(2) This is how the snake spoke and this is how animal wisdom speaks, naked or in the most philosophical garb, to us today, where an express prohibition of God keeps us away from delightful sensual enjoyment, and it still exaggerates today as it did then, overlooks the little forbidden Sum of what is morally permitted, and represents the divine moral law as the enemy of all sensual pleasures.
(ג) כְּח֤וּט הַשָּׁנִי֙ שִׂפְתוֹתַ֔יִךְ וּמִדְבָּרֵ֖ךְ נָאוֶ֑ה כְּפֶ֤לַח הָֽרִמּוֹן֙ רַקָּתֵ֔ךְ מִבַּ֖עַד לְצַמָּתֵֽךְ׃ (ד) כְּמִגְדַּ֤ל דָּוִיד֙ צַוָּארֵ֔ךְ בָּנ֖וּי לְתַלְפִּיּ֑וֹת אֶ֤לֶף הַמָּגֵן֙ תָּל֣וּי עָלָ֔יו כֹּ֖ל שִׁלְטֵ֥י הַגִּבֹּרִֽים׃ (ה) שְׁנֵ֥י שָׁדַ֛יִךְ כִּשְׁנֵ֥י עֳפָרִ֖ים תְּאוֹמֵ֣י צְבִיָּ֑ה הָרוֹעִ֖ים בַּשּׁוֹשַׁנִּֽים׃
(3) Your lips are like a crimson thread, Your mouth is lovely. Your brow behind your veil [Gleams] like a pomegranate split open. (4) Your neck is like the Tower of David, Built to hold weapons, Hung with a thousand shields— All the quivers of warriors. (5) Your breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle, Browsing among the lilies.
The rabbis were quite aware of the powerful sensuality of studying Torah together. No one could ever know you like your chevruta (study partner).
.
Rachel Adler, The Goals of Chevruta: “The Juxtaposition of Text and Person”
The chaverim (study partners) do not simply study Bible. . . . The very structure of their relationship and the nature of its boundaries present a Jewish model for the relation between self and other. In this relationship, people experience each other as whole, rather than as fragmented, beings…Self and other are not sharply separate here. To be chaverim is to be neither fused nor counterposed, but to be juxtaposed. The root CH-B-R means to join together at the boundaries.
.
Even learning Torah from a teacher is likened to "kissing."
(א) [עַל־פִּי תּוֹרָה יב - תְּהִלָּה לְדָוִד] בַּמֶּה נְקַדֵּם יְהֹוָה כְּעַל כֹּל אֲשֶׁר גְּמָלָנוּ בְּרַחֲמָיו וְרוֹב חֲסָדָיו,
(1) Regardless of the depth of our spiritual exile, Torah study has the power to elevate us to ever higher levels of Teshuvah and connection with God, but only when we study the Torah for its own sake — “to learn, teach, observe and perform” the will of God, and to give God pleasure. Some of the strongest opposition to the true Tzaddikim comes from Torah scholars who study for motives of self-aggrandizement. However, the true Tzaddik has the power to lift up the “fallen Torah” of such scholars and restore it to its holy source. The entire Oral Torah — the Mishnah, Gemara, Midrashim, Halakhah, Kabbalah, Chassidut, etc. — was revealed and transmitted by generations of Tzaddikim. Through intense study for its own sake, we can bind our soul to that of the departed Tanna (Mishnaic teacher) or Tzaddik who originally revealed the teaching we are studying. The intimate spiritual communion that comes from mouthing of the words of the Tzaddik's teachings is called “kissing.” HaShem! How can I approach You after all the love and kindness You have shown me?
But is pleasure bad? Should we turn to complete asceticism, and atone for every pleasure we experience? Definitely not!
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּתַעֲנִית נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא. סָבַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ״, וְכִי בְּאֵיזֶה נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה? אֶלָּא שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה זֶה, שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן — נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא, הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר וְדָבָר — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
§ The Gemara returns to the primary topic of the tractate, the issue of fasts. Shmuel said: Whoever sits in observance of a fast is called a sinner, as it is inappropriate to take unnecessary suffering upon oneself. The Gemara comments: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Great says: What is the meaning when the verse states, with regard to a nazirite: “And he will atone for him for that he sinned by the soul [nefesh]” (Numbers 6:11). But with what soul did this nazirite sin? Rather, the nazirite sinned by the distress he caused himself when he abstained from wine, in accordance with the terms of his vow. And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if this nazirite, who distressed himself by abstaining only from wine, is nevertheless called a sinner and requires atonement, then with regard to one who distresses himself by abstaining from each and every matter of food and drink when he fasts, all the more so should he be considered a sinner.
To summarize, Shmuel says, 'Whoever denies himself pleasures is called a sinner.' Rabbi Elazar (in the next lines, not shown here) says, 'Such a person is called a saint.'
רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי כֹהֵן בְּשֵׁם רַב. אָסוּר לָדוּר בְּעִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ לֹא רוֹפֵא וְלֹא מֶרְחָץ וְלֹא בֵית דִּין מַכִּין וְחוֹבְשִׁין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף אָסוּר לָדוּר בְּעִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ גִּינּוֹנִיתָא שֶׁל יָרָק. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי כֹהֵן בְּשֵׁם רַב. עָתִיד אָדָם לִיתֵּן דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן עַל כָּל־מַה שֶׁרָאָת עֵינוֹ וְלֹא אָכַל. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר חֲשַׁשׁ לְהָדָא שְׁמוּעָתָא וּמַצְמִית לֵיהּ פְּרִיטִין וַאֲכִיל בְּהוֹן מִכָּל־מִילָּה חָדָא בְשַׁתָּא.
Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen in the name of Rav. It is forbidden to dwell in a city which has neither a medical man, nor a public bath, nor a court lashing and jailing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also it is forbidden to dwell in a city which has no vegetable garden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Cohen in the name of Rav: Every person will have to justify himself for everything his eye saw and which he did not eat. Rebbi Eleazar took note of this statement and saved coins from which he ate every kind once a year.
Does this mean it's kosher to live a completely hedonistic life? I don't think so. To summarize a Kabbalistic teaching I learned from R' Tzvi Gluckin, (non-Zohar secondary source here), the most sacred things in the world are 1) food and 2) sex. There's a reason humans enjoy them. These pleasures are a physical experience of amazement towards G-d's creations.
However, we should be careful about how/when we seek out these pleasures, because it can be easy to turn to the "counterfeit" of these good things. Basically, you might forget that these experiences are from G-d, and begin to worship the pleasure itself, rather than G-d. All of our sensory inputs are methods for experiencing G-d. The pleasures are not wrong; idol worship is. Moderation helps us to appreciate these pleasures as gifts from G-d.