Boys... :)

[Nevarlander]

I call this “boys” because I’m a girl. It could easily be “girls”, if I was a boy.

This is something that’s never been made straight to me, and I figure someone around here knows. I know that looking at people and thinking dirty things when you look at them b/c they’re pretty is bad, but looking at the person just because he (in my case) is pretty, and you like to look at beautiful things… how about that? Is it thought to be lustful as well?

I do this all the time if I’m around someone I judge to be pretty (I had a Latin teacher last year… … but he’s for another post). If something dirty comes to mind (not often), I turn somewhere else and tell it to go away, because further looking right then is going to lead me into sin. But, as I’ve said, just looking at people like you’d look at a picture or something… wrong, strange, normal? I’ve seriously never had this explained.

 

[AkronPonderer]

Nevarlander:

The first look is free (from sin), the subsequent ones cost ya.

 

[dulcissima]

I call this “boys” because I’m a girl. It could easily be “girls”, if I was a boy.

This is something that’s never been made straight to me, and I figure someone around here knows. I know that looking at people and thinking dirty things when you look at them b/c they’re pretty is bad, but looking at the person just because he (in my case) is pretty, and you like to look at beautiful things… how about that? Is it thought to be lustful as well?

I do this all the time if I’m around someone I judge to be pretty (I had a Latin teacher last year… … but he’s for another post). If something dirty comes to mind (not often), I turn somewhere else and tell it to go away, because further looking right then is going to lead me into sin. But, as I’ve said, just looking at people like you’d look at a picture or something… wrong, strange, normal? I’ve seriously never had this explained.

I think it is fine to appreciate the evidence of God’s amazing artistry. If your mind doesn’t take it any further than that, consider yourself blessed.

 

[rwoehmke]

Just looking and admiring is never wrong. Where it gets sticky is when someone becomes aware that for him/her just looking and admiring frequently leads to lustful thoughts or actions. Sometimes people with this problem will excuse themselves by saying just looking is OK, but they deceive themselves because just looking for them usually leads into further forbidden territory. We are required to have “custody of our eyes.” That is an old Jesuit way of saying that if things one looks at leads to sin, then that looking has to be controlled. Guys don’t just look at pornography for beauty and admiration. If they say that is all, they are fooling themselves. Equally a married man who says it is not a sin to just look is also deceiving himself if just looking leads to lustful thoughts. Vorstehen Sie?

 

[Em_in_FL]

I call this “boys” because I’m a girl. It could easily be “girls”, if I was a boy.

This is something that’s never been made straight to me, and I figure someone around here knows. I know that looking at people and thinking dirty things when you look at them b/c they’re pretty is bad, but looking at the person just because he (in my case) is pretty, and you like to look at beautiful things… how about that? Is it thought to be lustful as well?

I do this all the time if I’m around someone I judge to be pretty (I had a Latin teacher last year… … but he’s for another post). If something dirty comes to mind (not often), I turn somewhere else and tell it to go away, because further looking right then is going to lead me into sin. But, as I’ve said, just looking at people like you’d look at a picture or something… wrong, strange, normal? I’ve seriously never had this explained.

Hmmm well I don’t know if this is exactly “defined” in the catechism… because we’re allowed to be attracted to the opposite sex (how else could we fall in love with our spouse?)…

I think there is a difference between “attraction” and “lust”… a major difference. It is similar to being attracted to a beautiful work of art… there’s nothing necessarily lustful about looking at a beautiful work of art… unless you’re of course looking at a naked statue lustfully…

I think your perfectly normal… and dealing with those moments of potential sin appropriately (telling the thought to go away)…

But there’s nothing wrong with looking at something that’s beautiful.

 

[batteddy]

Maybe the distinction didn’t exist in the psyches of the past…but it does today and I think Catholics and the Church need to address it and operationally define our terms more precisely.

This distinction between lust and romance is often hinted at on these boards…but a lot of times it’s danced around and the answers given not very clear. I think it is because the two things can be related (though they can also be the farthest thing from each other…though I don’t know if that sort of is healthy).

Between a feeling of erotic attraction, and one of infatuation.

Between appreciating someone because they are “pretty” or “cute” as opposed to because they are “hot” or “sexy”.

Maybe the distinction doesn’t exist in Europe, and maybe the celibate clergy (not to bash them, as I myself plan to become a priest) has never really understood the difference…

But there is definitely a difference between wanting to get into someone’s pants…and wanting to just get into their arms. Between wanting their body, and wanting their heart-mind-body. Between wanting to screw and wanting to cuddle. Between wanting to go at it, and wanting to talk and hold hands. Between what makes your heart start palpitating and your palms sweating…and what gives a guy an erection.

At least in the modern day, at least in America.

It is dangerous because one often is tied up with the other in the mind and emotions, and because one often progresses towards the other in a relationship…and yet, I think there is a distinction that can definitely be made.

 

[AkronPonderer]

batteddy:

I agree with you. There is a distinction The proof is in the “hierarchy of looks” created by woman. If it was all a sexual thing, I doubt woman would be setting up and talking about this hierarchy too openly.

Men make the same distinction. But it gets quickly overwhelmed by a “sexy” hierarchy in most circles.

Proof? Old geezers talking openly about how a girl at the office, or one of their friends teenage daughters is "pretty or “cute”. If there wasn’t a distinction, some fathers would take it as almost criminal.

 

[Nevarlander]

Maybe the distinction didn’t exist in the psyches of the past…but it does today and I think Catholics and the Church need to address it and operationally define our terms more precisely.

This distinction between lust and romance is often hinted at on these boards…but a lot of times it’s danced around and the answers given not very clear. I think it is because the two things can be related (though they can also be the farthest thing from each other…though I don’t know if that sort of is healthy).

Between a feeling of erotic attraction, and one of infatuation.

Between appreciating someone because they are “pretty” or “cute” as opposed to because they are “hot” or “sexy”.

Maybe the distinction doesn’t exist in Europe, and maybe the celibate clergy (not to bash them, as I myself plan to become a priest) has never really understood the difference…

But there is definitely a difference between wanting to get into someone’s pants…and wanting to just get into their arms. Between wanting their body, and wanting their heart-mind-body. Between wanting to screw and wanting to cuddle. Between wanting to go at it, and wanting to talk and hold hands. Between what makes your heart start palpitating and your palms sweating…and what gives a guy an erection.

At least in the modern day, at least in America.

It is dangerous because one often is tied up with the other in the mind and emotions, and because one often progresses towards the other in a relationship…and yet, I think there is a distinction that can definitely be made.

Batteddy explains another aspect of it pretty well: if it’s a man, rather than a baby (I also do this with babies, because they’re cute), I’ll sometimes think “I wonder what he’d be like to go out with?”, or “Man, if he wasn’t married he’d be a great boyfriend”, or a daydream about date-y stuff or a kiss, though I stop looking at that point if I know he’s taken. It’s husband or boyfriend fantasies, rather than dirty ones, you know? I don’t see much wrong about it, but there are some things I don’t see as wrong that I know that are, so I might well be mistaken. That’s why I’m asking you guys.

OT: Does anyone posting on here have a cute, smart, Catholic, single son/brother/friend in his twenties or early thirties who wants a cute, smart, Catholic girlfriend who’s a bit younger? Most of the men I know who I would consider dating are in no position to go out with me (they’re already married, they’re my boss, etc.), so I’ve got to look farther afield.