Am I lustful if i see photos where the girl I like is wearing a bikini?

[sw85]

and I become excited
just because I see her womb… there where one day she could shelter my children (I dream)
just because I see her pretty nabel
and because I see how glad she could be because she is a WOMAN so beautiful… I am really glad since there is someone like her at the Universe…
and I think this - that she must be glad being a girl like she is, because I see - not obsessively, but actually, her female parts of the body

is it a sin?

the last thing I could not do
but I love do the other things
see her womb
see her nabel

i don’t know if that girl likes the fact of me seeing those photos, they are on a photo album which a friend hers has in the public apps of their facebook

I want care her most than any other thing

She is the star of virtue and chastity!

Yet publicizes pictures of her wearing what is apparently a revealing bikini.

Take her off the pedestal, dude. She’s not a statue; she doesn’t belong on one.

And yes, quit looking at pictures of your friends’ half-naked bodies. You shouldn’t need someone on the Internet to tell you that.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

It really should be common sense and something women shouldn’t have to be told or instructed to do. If they feel that their body may provide scandal they should fix that. I’m not going to name specific lengths of clothing or “has to be below the knees”. Women should be able to ask themselves “will this provoke impure thoughts or stares?”

But how are women supposed to know this? They certainly can’t read what’s in a man’s head. And all men are not created equal; at least in this sense. Some men have “dirty minds” and some don’t. Some men are disciplined enough that they won’t lust or stare at a woman in a swimsuit. And, I read recently that a Muslim man who is on trial in the United States asked his lawyer to demand to the judge that the (female) prosecutor be required to “cover up” because the defendant thought her business suit was too risque and might cause him to have impure thoughts.

Bottom line: It is all relative. What some people see as risque others may not. A man cannot blame a woman for his own lust. That is analogous to saying “she was asking for it” when a woman gets raped for wearing a miniskirt.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

But how are women supposed to know this? They certainly can’t read what’s in a man’s head. And all men are not created equal; at least in this sense. Some men have “dirty minds” and some don’t. Some men are disciplined enough that they won’t lust or stare at a woman in a swimsuit. And, I read recently that a Muslim man who is on trial in the United States asked his lawyer to demand to the judge that the (female) prosecutor be required to “cover up” because the defendant thought her business suit was too risque and might cause him to have impure thoughts.

Bottom line: It is all relative. What some people see as risque others may not. A man cannot blame a woman for his own lust. That is analogous to saying “she was asking for it” when a woman gets raped for wearing a miniskirt.

It doesn’t matter that some have “dirty minds” or not. Women are not to intentionally scandalize and must take caution into what they wear. The ridiculous request that muslim fellow made was out of line. Modesty must be made in accordance to the woman’s means. I’m not sure if your condoning intentional scandal by stating that it is relative. I’m not sure what your defending in your argument.

Also, the fact that your equating a man calling for modesty to a saying “she was asking for it” after rape is down right silly. That comparison is misleading.

 

[sw85]

But how are women supposed to know this?

Do women not know that men crave sex? It’s not rocket science. If I can see your breasts, or your cleavage, or the outline of your breasts through your shirt, or discern the color of your underpants, etc., you’re doing it wrong.

Men are *insanely *sexually reactive. This isn’t news. That some men can exercise discipline and restrain themselves doesn’t mean women shouldn’t be dressing immodestly. It’s not easy even for us who have iron self-control.

Re: rape, come on. Sexual desire is a cross men bear. Help us, in charity, to carry it – cover the cleavage.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

If I can see your breasts, or your cleavage, or the outline of your breasts through your shirt, or discern the color of your underpants, etc., you’re doing it wrong.

Women are not to intentionally scandalize and must take caution into what they wear.

So then you are in fact saying that if a man looks at a woman with lustful thoughts it is her fault because she did not dress modestly enough?

 

[partypilot1]

Hahaha

It is not necessary to make a scandal because I referred to her “womb”. I meant–> her belly. So it has sense that I like too her belly button or whatever is its name…
Since the womb is hidden behind the belly I constructed a poetic thought.
I don’t know if I desire to see the photos in order to obtain excitement. I do know that I am flatly anti-pornographic. I could swear by my heart that if I no married her I would become priest—> but don’t take seriously this last thing because God is certainly not a bride to pursuit after the Lady is gone
It is so I fantasize imagining that my children could be warm at her womb, someday…
The past days I saw naked bodies doing a search on Google (of an actress) an I died one time more because I die each day I see a naked body because I want to give my whole loving life to her.

I would underwrite that I am a mind-gamer but this I because i have no contact with noone. I have not exterior life and I want to give my life to a girl so tender like she is

She is not the kind of woman that dress scantily-clad. She is jewish she is a Conservative jewess but I think that she is deeply sensitive to the religious—> she would underwrite the orthodox elemments— for example the modesty (how Orthodox jewish women dress you know) There are photos where she is possing like a liwevire woman yes but I don’t like those I like the times when she let run her insecurity

I should’nt have a problem if I can’t see her I hope this is not a material attraction— a chemical attraction I can survive if I don’t have her scent in my body but always when I can see her I just feel that Israelites should have felt after seeing the mana flowing from the desert—> my heart is just sand

I don’t want to have a pornographic attraction to her
I don’t want imagine her nude nor having sex with me—> but I like see the way how her breasts are formed on her trunk
I know (I don’t like it but I knot it) the fact that maybe I won’t marry her so I don’t want have naked thought on me of another woman more than that woman who is the appropiate for me

I just want be pervaved towards her in the same manner how Neolithic men adored those sculptures of women with large bellies
I want be warm at their heart
that is all
—> I know this could be opposite to the male heroism that God demands on us. To Him i must give the flesh of my heart if he ask for that

just listen me and write me
thanks

Do not worry, your intrigue is honest and natural. The particular parts of her body that you mentioned are what draws you to her image. Much like staring at a picture of a storm and fixating on the streaks of lighting. This is a natural part of growing up and hopefully over time you will learn to appreciate all aspects of the image. If you find yourself in a position where you can’t overcome the particular fixations, I would seek help because there are so many beautiful things God created that you would miss because of fixations.

Over time you will learn that there are particular favorites for each of your senses and some may be stronger then others. If I were in your shoes, I would try to entertain other parts of the five senses; hearing, taste, smell and touch. Try walking blindfolded for a day (you will quickly appreciate hearing and touch). Try being fed blindfolded (things taste different when you take away pre expectations).

There are three faculties of the soul; Vegetative, Sensitive and Rational. It is good, normal and natural to explore all aspects in them as you grow. As you explore them, on your path of life always try to question how each particular part can help bring you to God The Father

God Bless,

 

[REDfan4Lyfe]

I’m not trying to antagonize or stir the pot. I’m just asking a simple question.

Where do you draw the line between modest and provocative?

Anything that presents the body as an object of lust. Although this is very difficult to define.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Anything that presents the body as an object of lust. Although this is very difficult to define.

Best answer I’ve seen so far.

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

So then you are in fact saying that if a man looks at a woman with lustful thoughts it is her fault because she did not dress modestly enough?

No, I’m not saying that and I’m sure sw isn’t either (if we were saying that, that’s what we would have said). It isn’t their fault, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t sinning by intentionally provoking impure thoughts. The man would be sinning if he alowed himself to become enthralled by the woman’s attire. It is indeed a test of purity.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

No, I’m not saying that and I’m sure sw isn’t either (if we were saying that, that’s what we would have said). It isn’t their fault, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t sinning by intentionally provoking impure thoughts. The man would be sinning if he alowed himself to become enthralled by the woman’s attire. It is indeed a test of purity.

So using this logic, i.e., if a man allows himself to become enthralled by a woman’s attire, it doesn’t really matter whether she wears a pants suit or a string bikini. It’s the attire that turns him on.

My point is, is the onus on the man to keep his desires in check, or is the onus on the woman not to provoke those desires?

 

[Bl_Pope_Pius_IX]

So using this logic, i.e., if a man allows himself to become enthralled by a woman’s attire, it doesn’t really matter whether she wears a pants suit or a string bikini. It’s the attire that turns him on.

No. Attire is very important to ones outward appearance. So the logic that you understood was not the one I intended to give. I never said that it was the attire that “turns him on”. I was saying that clothing (or lack thereof) can easily be a tool of scandal and furthermore, a tool of impurity.

My point is, is the onus on the man to keep his desires in check, or is the onus on the woman not to provoke those desires?

These are two completely different acts. The “onus” is on both for their respective immoralities. However, we must understand whether or not the woman intends to provoke impure thoughts. If she does then she most certainly is culpable. Of course if she lacks the intent she cannot be culpable. However, my opinion is that if she is blatantly innapropriately dressed and doesn’t realize it then she lacks prudence in dress.

I hope I’ve clarified, because I’ve repeated myself about three times now.

 

[Yalibeth]

She is the star of virtue and chastity!

Yet publicizes pictures of her wearing what is apparently a revealing bikini.

Take her off the pedestal, dude. She’s not a statue; she doesn’t belong on one.

And yes, quit looking at pictures of your friends’ half-naked bodies. You shouldn’t need someone on the Internet to tell you that.

What kind of stairway to heaven is that which is enlightened by this catholic thought? How much is shinning the light that marks you as a child of the true Israel? Which logics are here my friend?. Half-naked bodies? I don’t think that this is the catholic prudentia.

I didn’t like either the irony in the first sentences. It is a vain counterpart to my tragedy.

But I liked your pure soul!

 

[Bookcat]

See the chastity tab at the top of this site. As I recall there can be some info there on chastity and modesty. Also of course the Catechism 6th and 9th commandments.

 

[sw85]

So then you are in fact saying that if a man looks at a woman with lustful thoughts it is her fault because she did not dress modestly enough?

I’m not “faulting” anyone for anything. What I’m saying is that male sexual desire is powerful, rootless, and highly reactive, and that women know this. So when women dress provocatively intentionally, so that cleavage is showing or their underpants are poking up over the top of their jeans, etc., they are in a sense consenting to torture and distract the men around them. If they dress provocatively unintentionally, then they are simply being negligent. In either case their behavior is disrespectful to the men around them, who are saddled with a burden of desire they can rarely satisfy licitly and which is a source of emotional and sometimes physical pain to them.

Since this is a cross we carry, charity demands that you help us carry it, by not pointlessly inflaming our passions and then complaining that our passions are inflamed. Sometimes that means wearing an undershirt, or looser jeans, or trading in the two-piece for a one-piece, whatever.

So using this logic, i.e., if a man allows himself to become enthralled by a woman’s attire, it doesn’t really matter whether she wears a pants suit or a string bikini. It’s the attire that turns him on.

My point is, is the onus on the man to keep his desires in check, or is the onus on the woman not to provoke those desires?

Let’s not talk about onuses. Let’s talk about what charity demands of each of us. It demands that men not objectify women. And it demands that women not put themselves in a position where they can be objectified.

What kind of stairway to heaven is that which is enlightened by this catholic thought? How much is shinning the light that marks you as a child of the true Israel? Which logics are here my friend?. Half-naked bodies? I don’t think that this is the catholic prudentia.

I didn’t like either the irony in the first sentences. It is a vain counterpart to my tragedy.

But I liked your pure soul!

I don’t mean to disparage the girl being referenced there (who I don’t even know), and if that was the impression I gave, I regret it. What I did mean to do was to dislodge your thought process, which was going off in bad directions.

The kind of idol-worship exhibited in the first post is not uncommon for men, especially young men. I indulged it in much, and still do to some extent. We easily become enthralled to and intoxicated by beauty. Which stands to reason, since beauty is a reflection of God: to rejoice in something beautiful is to see it more like the way that God sees it. Its good in moderation, but what was exhibited in that post was not moderation. It was objectification of a different sort: treating her as the personification of a virtue, rather than an actual person with faults and features of her own. (It also risks giving you convenient cover to indulge in lustful thoughts: you’re not desiring her, just admiring the curve of her bosom, after all, right?)

Pointing out the irony of the situation was intended to firmly yank your head out of the clouds. When you gaze longingly at an arousing picture of a woman who’s body you have no right to, you are lusting, and lust is a sin.

 

[Yalibeth]

…
The kind of idol-worship exhibited in the first post is not uncommon for men, especially young men. I indulged it in much, and still do to some extent. We easily become enthralled to and intoxicated by beauty. Which stands to reason, since beauty is a reflection of God: to rejoice in something beautiful is to see it more like the way that God sees it. Its good in moderation, but what was exhibited in that post was not moderation. It was objectification of a different sort: treating her as the personification of a virtue, rather than an actual person with faults and features of her own. (It also risks giving you convenient cover to indulge in lustful thoughts: you’re not desiring her, just admiring the curve of her bosom, after all, right?)

Pointing out the irony of the situation was intended to firmly yank your head out of the clouds. When you gaze longingly at an arousing picture of a woman who’s body you have no right to, you are lusting, and lust is a sin.

Maybe if I hadn’t a heart of stone but a heart of flesh instead I would have before me a real persone and not a statue who habits only at my thoughts—> but to die—> that is so hard!
To give our most precious----> oh I prefer be lost at the Desert and no to be consumed by the Sign of the Baptism. I must change…

I won’t see her again If i am not psychologically aimed by fair tenderness.

 

[REDfan4Lyfe]

Don’t worry, bud. The same thing happened to me Junior year. I still stress over it to this day. I pray God gives you a clear answer on this subject matter.