Kant: On Suicide and on Lust

Okay, I'm going to get caught up on my blog, so here goes.
Duties to one's self as an animal being: First I would like to say that I like this phrase, few moralists give any credance to the animal aspect of human beings, they see this as being a baser aspect that has been demonized and should be overcome through means of morality. It is interesting that the human race believes itself to be above nature, man is the only animal that doesn't believe that it is an animal and yet is always damning itself for being one.
Kant's first issue in this section is the issue of suicide. Suicide goes against the most basic of animal instincts-the instinct of self-preservation. It goes against nature itself. Rarely do you see any other species of animal kill itself (one of my professors once told of an old newspaper article from the late 1800's/early 1900's of an abused circus elephant that ended it's miserable life by walking into a lake and drowning). I know that suicide is antithetical to self-preservation, fight or flight, and that in doing so you forgo your responsibilities for your life, and by extention God who has given you life, and your responsibilities to other people such as your children who need you to care for them, but who can measure the extent of one man's pain? I'm not condoning suicide in any way, shape or form, but wouldn't ending one's suffering be a rational duty? Everyone tries to avoid pain and it can be considered to be a duty to oneself to avoid suffering needlessly (I suppose it all depends on what your suffering for) so couldn't suicide be considered as an act of self-preservation in the sense that it is an act of ending needless suffering? Many would say suicide is an act of cowardice, which even Kant says though he openly acknowledges that actually commiting suicide also takes courage. How do we justify war then? Volunteering for war seems to me an act of glorified suicide (I only say this in reference to those who volunteer for war, not those who are drafted because free will is out of the question, their death is on someone elses hands) and glorified murder. As for the duty to God in the topic of suicide, God had given every one a life and the free will to do with it as they may. And the duty to others, yes suicide is a selfish act, especially when there is more than just one person's life involved, it effects everyone around them and leaving behind loved ones who are now irrevocably damaged, such as children deprived of a parent whom they need not just for physical care but for emotional care.
It is also interesting that Kant should add maiming oneself and depriving oneself of those things needed for a healthy life to the topic of suicide, because most would not really think this a moral issue, disturbing yes, but not so serious as killing oneself. Especially considering that many of the world's religions, Christianity included, all practice some form of self-denial whether it be fasting or celibacy or, in some extreme cases, self-flaggelation.
On Defiling Oneself By Lust-I think that on this point I will have to disagree with Kant and anyone else who implies that sex solely for pleasure is a bad thing. I think that denying oneself this sort of pleasure is more harmful than indulging in it. However, like everything else, it must be subject to moderation, having lots of (responsible) sex exclusively with one person is great, being promiscuous is bad and (in my opinion) shows more lack of self-respect than it does a healthy sexual attitude, and as far as celibacy goes well, it depends under what context, for example a rape victim choosing celibacy is perfectly understandable, some one choosing to be celibate because they believe sex is sinful or that chastity is more holy is taking on a harmful attitude and denying themselves a very natural inclination (I would liken the need for sex to the need for food or sleep) and it can only lead to trouble (take the Catholic church pedophile scandal for example), and then there are those who choose to remain celibate until marriage, fine, whatever it's their choice.
I don't believe that having sex without procreation in mind is in anyway debasing and I don't believe that in doing so we forgo our personality or our humanity. Sexuality is a big part of my personal identity and I think I am all the better for it. Even Kant, at the end of this section seems to relinquish his attack on non-procreative sex (more broadly defined as sodomy which is any unnatural sex acts, which are defined as acts that are non-procreative i.e. homosexuality, oral sex, etc.) and loosely defines love as a "sexual inclination" (p.180, [6:426]) "It is rather a pleasure from the enjoyment of another person, which therefore belongs to the faculty of desire and, indeed, to its highest stage, passion." (p.180 [6:426]) I may be interpreting Kant's meaning loosely.
Meaningful erotic attachment is one of the most important aspects of romantic love.