ok; thank you
firstly, his comment about not writing his name because he is haughty and doesn't want to disclose his "sins of his youth," that is more on account of shame, not haughtiness - although they are related.
now, for my main comment: he asks a good philisophical question: why is it that when one eats a little piece of steak, he is somewhat satisfied, and he doesn't have an intense desire to find more, but one who sees the inner thigh of a woman naturally and instinctively wants to see more, and he will not rest until he does so, and as a matter of fact, his desire will not subside until ejaculation (somehow)? [now, this is somewhat at odds with reb hhm, who always writes that there is no build-up for sex, and if you read on in his answer, he certainly disagrees with this, for he writes that one desire inherently leads to the second which leads to the third - whatever, at least we know that reb hhm is not the mechaber.]
his answer is somewhat perplexing, but interesting. he says that there truly is no need for sex (like reb hhm says), and actually what we are doing with our thoughts and desires is that we are paining ourselves, and we are putting ourselves in anguish because we are not experiencing the ultimate act. so of course we are not content with a glance of some naked skin or a glimpse of underwear, for this is pain, and we are not "satisfied" until the pain is gone, and that is accomplished only thru ejaculation. this, he compares, to those who cut themselves or inflict other types of harm on themselves; is there pleasure? he says there isn't. when will it stop? he doesn't say, but i will leave that to your imagination.
sorry for being crude (actually, i'm not), but i am happy to have read those pages and comment on them, as here in nauru, formely known as pleasure island, but now known as the "least visited country in the world," we know of no pleasure or pain; we simply live life for today.
hope that helped