Celebrity crushes

[Gordon_Sims]

Alright then, what is the magic age at which a crush becomes a near occasion of sin? Since you stated you believe this is the case for all adults, regardless of marital status. Thirteen? Fourteen? Does it depends on whether the “kid” is prone to sexual sin in other ways? (I am fairly sure that in some of your other topics you have mentioned knowing people who were sexually active at those ages.)

Would you then say that your definition of “crush” as “romantic fantasies about someone for whom you have a physical attraction” applies to adults only, and that the kind of “crush” a child gets, is completely different from the kind of “crush” an adult gets?

What is the fundamental difference between a man your age crushing on a 15 year old, and the 15 year old crushing on a man your age? According to your own arguments so far, I find it just as arbitrary for you to make a distinction, as you do regarding others. Yet I suspect most people would say there is, even if the 15 year old is sexually active.

Irrelevant and arbitrary derailment, but I’ll say 18 for the sake of argument, give or take depending on the personality of the individual. I wouldn’t characterize an adult crush as different from an adolescent one, which could explain part of why they’re inappropriate, especially for married folk. As far as me vs. a 15 year old, I never said that a 15 year old is mentally and emotionally on the same level as an adult so it’s not an apt comparison. And the distinction I keep asking for someone to elaborate on is why their selected, approved crushes are okay yet these other examples aren’t. When comparing apples and apples, I don’t see a fundamental difference. Others do yet they seem reluctant to elaborate.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Irrelevant and arbitrary derailment, but I’ll say 18 for the sake of argument, give or take depending on the personality of the individual. I wouldn’t characterize an adult crush as different from an adolescent one, which could explain part of why they’re inappropriate, especially for married folk. As far as me vs. a 15 year old, I never said that a 15 year old is mentally and emotionally on the same level as an adult so it’s not an apt comparison. And the distinction I keep asking for someone to elaborate on is why their selected, approved crushes are okay yet these other examples aren’t. When comparing apples and apples, I don’t see a fundamental difference. Others do yet they seem reluctant to elaborate.

Nope, not irrelevant at all. You earlier in this topic stated that crushes were near occasions of sin, full stop. Yet, when I challenged you regarding how this applied to children and adolescents, you backtracked and stated, of course they are different.

Yet, if you do NOT “characterize an adult crush as different from an adolescent one”, then WHY are they acceptable for adolescents, but not adults? Surely you’d agree that adolescents are capable of sexual sin. Just because adolescents aren’t old enough to know better? Alright, would you make the same distinction for other forms of sexual sin? Would you ever say that, for example, masturbation is appropriate for adolescents, but not adults?

See, when I state that I see no fundamental difference between an adolescent crush and an adult crush, I’m using the same logic you’re using to state there is no fundamental difference between crushes on Robert Duvall, Ariel the mermaid, and a porn star. After all, “physical attraction is physical attraction”, right?

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Because I don’t think I can if you don’t already have a clue. I really don’t. I’ve tried to define “crush” and you characterize it very differently; you might use part of my example but then twist it so it looks nothing like what I was describing.
Not sure where I said that.it would be difficult to enjoy her work without sinning ditto, although for the last one I can look at pages of men in underwear and :yawn: (unless they show off the Adonis belt, and I mean really show it off - I know my limits) creepy and if you don’t understand why, I can’t explain itit happens, but if one is married, shut it down; if single, proceed with caution (workplace and all) I did my best for this hour. If I don’t have to delete this due to formatting, we may have to go another round tomorrow…or later today…whatever. I hope I just demonstrated that there is. Like I said, it isn’t just physical attraction. Um…well since we disagree on what constitutes a crush on a fundamental level… And there it is. The fantasizing. Not on the same page there either.

I’m going to channel my inner Vamp!Willow and sign off…♪ Bored now ♪

With each of the examples I’ve given I’ve framed them as being the exact same sort of crushes that others have described. You told me the one specific example I gave was creepy. Other examples I’ve given have been described as sinful, lustful and inappropriate. Nowhere did I say I was doing anything any different than Cat or whoever. So if acting that way toward Robert Patrick or Ariel is okay, why is it creepy when it’s the babysitter, sinful if it’s the porn star or inappropriate if it’s my coworker? And, just in case I haven’t made it clear yet, I think they’re all inappropriate. I think it’s highly inconsistent to say the ones you or Cat or whoever else engages in are okay solely on the basis of the fact that they’re the sort of crushes you want to engage in, but then say these others are creepy, sinful and wrong solely on the basis that they’re not the sort of crushes you find appropriate. As I’ve said over and over, most of the people in here grasp that there’s a wrongness to this behavior on some level. They just keep stating that theirs are fine because they’re the one engaging in them, while these others are wrong for some arbitrary reason. It all smacks of relativism. My porn use is fine because I can handle. My abortion wasn’t a sin because the baby wouldn’t have had a good life anyway. Me lusting after another woman is just dandy because my wife says it’s okay and she does it herself.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Nope, not irrelevant at all. You earlier in this topic stated that crushes were near occasions of sin, full stop. Yet, when I challenged you regarding how this applied to children and adolescents, you backtracked and stated, of course they are different.

Yet, if you do NOT “characterize an adult crush as different from an adolescent one”, then WHY are they acceptable for adolescents, but not adults? Surely you’d agree that adolescents are capable of sexual sin. Just because adolescents aren’t old enough to know better? Alright, would you make the same distinction for other forms of sexual sin? Would you ever say that, for example, masturbation is appropriate for adolescents, but not adults?

See, when I state that I see no fundamental difference between an adolescent crush and an adult crush, I’m using the same logic you’re using to state there is no fundamental difference between crushes on Robert Duvall, Ariel the mermaid, and a porn star. After all, “physical attraction is physical attraction”, right?

I didn’t backtrack. The very first time it came up I stated that kids aren’t mentally or emotionally as mature as adults and that kids weren’t the point of this thread. Crushes let kids learn to recognize and deal with their emotions and sexuality. Responsible parents need to be able to recognize what’s going on with their kids and try to steer them away from sinful situations. I’d elaborate on how children and adults aren’t mentally or emotionally equivalent, but like I said, that’s not the point of this thread.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I didn’t backtrack. The very first time it came up I stated that kids aren’t mentally or emotionally as mature as adults and that kids weren’t the point of this thread. Crushes let kids learn to recognize and deal with their emotions and sexuality. Responsible parents need to be able to recognize what’s going on with their kids and try to steer them away from sinful situations. I’d elaborate on how children and adults aren’t mentally or emotionally equivalent, but like I said, that’s not the point of this thread.

Sorry, I’m still going to label your distinctions to be arbitrary rationalizations that reek of moral relativism. I think I’m quite justified in doing that, since this is the same approach you’re taking to people like Cat and Bruised Reed. Real classy for you to compare them to people who justify porn use, abortion, and adultery.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Sorry, I’m still going to label your distinctions to be arbitrary rationalizations that reek of moral relativism. I think I’m quite justified in doing that, since this is the same approach you’re taking to people like Cat and Bruised Reed. Real classy for you to compare them to people who justify porn use, abortion, and adultery.

But, see, that’s been the whole point of the thread. Jesus stated that anyone who looks at someone lustfully has already committed adultery in their heart. Cat, Bruised Reed, etc. insist that their crushes aren’t in any way lustful or inappropriate. Fine. But they characterize the examples I give as wrong, creepy, etc. I agree wholeheartedly that each and every example I’ve given is wrong. However, I also believe that each and every example they’ve given is just as wrong. The big difference is that I believe they’re wrong simply by virtue of being wrong, as opposed to mine being right and theirs being wrong simply because mine are mine and theirs are theirs. I’m not the one throwing up arbitrary rationalizations, such as ignoring the fact that the Duke University porn star was all over the news for a couple weeks so one could easily be exposed to her without her being exposed to them, and insisting that any crush one has on her would have to be sinful by her very nature. Or saying that my crush is fine because it’s a celebrity I’ll likely never meet, but yours is wrong because you know the person. My whole point has been that in a Catholic, sacramental marriage, having a crush on someone other than your spouse is inappropriate at best and, based on Matthew 5:28, adulterous at worst. Go ahead and say I’m wrong, but at least be consistent.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Jesus stated that anyone who looks at someone lustfully has already committed adultery in their heart…My whole point has been that in a Catholic, sacramental marriage, having a crush on someone other than your spouse is inappropriate at best and, based on Matthew 5:28, adulterous at worst.

Your whole point is based on the assumption that “having a crush” is equal to being “lustful”. You keep coming back to this assumption over and over, despite being told by people who have relevant experience that no, not all crushes involve lust.

Indeed, you do seem to accept that for children and adolescents, not all crushes involve lust and sexual sin, otherwise, you’d be stating that parents discourage their children from having crushes at all, not merely “try to steer them away from sinful situations”.

Yet, magically, once someone turns 18, then all their crushes automatically become occasions for lustful sin? How is that any less arbitrary than some of the other distinctions people have made here?

Anyway, I am signing off for the night, but I will say, your tendency to essentially accuse people of lying and rationalizing when they state their crushes do NOT involve lust is getting really tiresome.

Personally, I have (1) had crushes on people and (2) looked lustfully on people. The two situations are NOT anything close to each other. I feel ashamed and guilty about (2) and if I ever become Catholic, I know such episodes should be confessed. But I certainly have no plans to confess (1).

 

[Gordon_Sims]

Your whole point is based on the assumption that “having a crush” is equal to being “lustful”. You keep coming back to this assumption over and over, despite being told by people who have relevant experience that no, not all crushes involve lust.

Actually, my whole point is based upon my assertion that crushes consist of a person devoting undue attention (often of a romantic nature) to someone other than their spouse who they find attractive and/or glamorous. As I’ve already pointed out a few times, there have been countless threads on here where spouses were nearly crucified for devoting undue attention (sometimes with far scanter levels of involvement than actively fantasizing about the person) to an opposite sex friend or coworker and accused of already being engaged in or being dangerously close to having an emotional affair. I don’t recall any responses in this thread that said it would be okay for me to cover my fridge with pictures of and fantasize about my coworker. In other words, everyone recognizes that as inappropriate behavior for a spouse to engage in. However, since they like acting the same way about this or that celebrity, they see nothing wrong when they engage in the exact same activities. Yet nobody can adequately explain what the fundamental difference is that makes one okay and the other not. In both cases you’re giving a variety and quality of attention that should only be reserved for your spouse to someone who isn’t your spouse. But again, when it’s something you like to do it’s okay; when it’s something that doesn’t meet your level of acceptability–even though it’s the exact same, word for word behavior–it’s creepy, sinful and inappropriate. I just can’t comprehend how in a Catholic forum me saying that, within the bounds of a sacramental marriage, you shouldn’t fantasize about someone other than your spouse is considered an incorrect and extremist statement (not to mention the fact that one of the few people taking my side–particularly that this behavior is incongruous with Church teaching–is an atheist).

 

[Faxero]

GordonSims isn’t condemning crushes, he’s condemning celebrity crushes.

I just can’t comprehend how in a Catholic forum me saying that, within the bounds of a sacramental marriage, you shouldn’t fantasize about someone other than your spouse is considered an incorrect and extremist statement (not to mention the fact that one of the few people taking my side–particularly that this behavior is incongruous with Church teaching–is an atheist).

:yup:

 

[Cat]

Wow, so I guess you must think all those Justin Bieber fangirls are sinning too? Even the 8 year olds? I guess you think all the parents of girls who have plastered their walls with Bieber posters, should be tearing them down, and if they’re Catholic, urging their wayward children to go to confession? All the girls I knew in elementary school and junior high who innocently said they wanted to marry (insert celebrity of the month) and have his kids were sinning, then? Because of course marriage involves SEX, hence all these girls must have been seriously fantasizing about SEX?

(And before you bring up all your friends who started having sex at age 12, I realize SOME of them may actually have been lusting over their crushes, but I seriously doubt ALL of them were. Some of them didn’t even know what sex was at the time; one being my own sister, so I’m pretty sure my assessment of her knowledge of sex at the time is pretty accurate.)

I think the problem here is that you are equating romance to sex. And while I hate being stereotypical, this does seem to be a rather stereotypically male approach to this topic.

As a former little girl (now woman) who did have crushes myself, It IS possible to have “romantic” fantasies without any sexual component. There are even asexual people who are NOT aromantic, and actually have romantic relationships, even without feeling any sexual attraction. You may find this hard to believe but if you browse some asexual forums you will find such people.

Indeed, I’ve noticed that most of the posters who think “crush = lust” are men, and perhaps (even though you’ll probably howl about double standards), if most men can’t crush without lusting, then maybe they should avoid them. But I still don’t see enough proof that this is the case for all men, or all women.

At least you’re being consistent in labeling ALL crushes “near occasions to sin”, I totally disagree with you but at least you’re consistent.

This is an excellent post. Thank you.

Gordon Sims, I don’t think you can understand the mind of a woman. Many women can read a romance novel, sigh over the hero and heroine, imagine herself as the heroine–and LOVE her husband even more after doing this.

It’s the way women’s minds are made. When we feed them “romance” in the form of novels, movies, tv shows, songs, art, fragrances, even sports (e.g., figure skating programs), it helps them to “grow” more in love with their own beloved husbands.

Conversely, if we don’t feed our minds romance, we tend to shrivel up in the romance department, and shut down. In some marriages, the husband is the one who does all the feeding, but what many husbands discover is that the more flowers and jewelry they buy, the more romance their wives need!

Thinking about other men and fantasizing about romantic scenarios doesn’t detract from the love that we have for our husbands. It enhances our love for our husbands.

When women fantasize about a celeb, at the same time, they are fantasizing about their husbands. Really, truly.

You don’t get it because you have a man’s mind that compartmentalizes everything. That’s OK. God made you that way.

But frankly, I’m getting kind of angry that you keep accusing me of indulging in a near occasion of sin when what I’m actually doing is BEING the WOMAN that GOD created me to be. He gave me this kind of mind that “stretches”. It’s a big mind that doesn’t compartmentalize things, but instead, is like a huge slush pile that includes everything from cooking dinner to making love to reading bacterial cultures at work–ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

That’s the way most women think. It’s utterly baffling to men who don’t think that way and can’t think that way.

This causes a lot of marriages to break up, BTW, because the men think their wives are goofy and unfocused, while the woman thinks her husband is rigid and too serious.

Everyone, please don’t think I’m saying that this is true of all women. In the womb, things happen, and some women come out with a brain that is more like a man’s, and some men come out with a brain that is more like a woman’s. Again, GOD allowed this to happen, and so it’s all good.

 

[Sarcelle]

is a man crush the same as a regular crush (the only difference being analogous to the difference between a square and a rectangle)?
Is bromance the same as romance (the only difference being analogous to that between a square and a rectangle)? Is bromance actually romance or is it just an imitation or something similar?

This is where our sex drenched society has ruined almost everything. There is such a thing as admiration without the list component. I have met ordinary people who I have admired. No, no lust or sexual attraction involved. I see celebrities who’s work I admire, actors, actresses, musicians, pro-athletes. I admire their work. No lust involved.

We can admire someone for their attractiveness, physical or otherwise, again no lust involved. Just like admiring a beautiful sunset, or the ocean.

It is not impossible.

Take for example bromance. To me it is nothing more.than brotherly love, philos, not Eros, if both men are straight. Bromance, what a ridiculous word.

 

[Sarcelle]

This is an excellent post. Thank you.

Gordon Sims, I don’t think you can understand the mind of a woman. Many women can read a romance novel, sigh over the hero and heroine, imagine herself as the heroine–and LOVE her husband even more after doing this.

It’s the way women’s minds are made. When we feed them “romance” in the form of novels, movies, tv shows, songs, art, fragrances, even sports (e.g., figure skating programs), it helps them to “grow” more in love with their own beloved husbands.

Conversely, if we don’t feed our minds romance, we tend to shrivel up in the romance department, and shut down. In some marriages, the husband is the one who does all the feeding, but what many husbands discover is that the more flowers and jewelry they buy, the more romance their wives need!

Thinking about other men and fantasizing about romantic scenarios doesn’t detract from the love that we have for our husbands. It enhances our love for our husbands.

When women fantasize about a celeb, at the same time, they are fantasizing about their husbands. Really, truly.

You don’t get it because you have a man’s mind that compartmentalizes everything. That’s OK. God made you that way.

But frankly, I’m getting kind of angry that you keep accusing me of indulging in a near occasion of sin when what I’m actually doing is BEING the WOMAN that GOD created me to be. He gave me this kind of mind that “stretches”. It’s a big mind that doesn’t compartmentalize things, but instead, is like a huge slush pile that includes everything from cooking dinner to making love to reading bacterial cultures at work–ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

That’s the way most women think. It’s utterly baffling to men who don’t think that way and can’t think that way.

This causes a lot of marriages to break up, BTW, because the men think their wives are goofy and unfocused, while the woman thinks her husband is rigid and too serious.

Everyone, please don’t think I’m saying that this is true of all women. In the womb, things happen, and some women come out with a brain that is more like a man’s, and some men come out with a brain that is more like a woman’s. Again, GOD allowed this to happen, and so it’s all good.

What men don’t understand is that sexual attraction is more of a multi-variable thing for women. With men, physical attraction leads straight to sexual attraction. With women, in general it takes a lot more than physical attraction. In general women would have to interact with a person for sexual attraction to take place. How a person comes forth and handle themselves, their personality all are factors. For men it’s much simpler. It’s how a woman looks is the main factor in deciding if a man wants to initiate pursuit. Of course he can call it off if he finds other factors.that turn him off.

Now I am just speaking in generalities.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

This is an excellent post. Thank you.

Gordon Sims, I don’t think you can understand the mind of a woman. Many women can read a romance novel, sigh over the hero and heroine, imagine herself as the heroine–and LOVE her husband even more after doing this.

It’s the way women’s minds are made. When we feed them “romance” in the form of novels, movies, tv shows, songs, art, fragrances, even sports (e.g., figure skating programs), it helps them to “grow” more in love with their own beloved husbands.

Conversely, if we don’t feed our minds romance, we tend to shrivel up in the romance department, and shut down. In some marriages, the husband is the one who does all the feeding, but what many husbands discover is that the more flowers and jewelry they buy, the more romance their wives need!

Thinking about other men and fantasizing about romantic scenarios doesn’t detract from the love that we have for our husbands. It enhances our love for our husbands.

When women fantasize about a celeb, at the same time, they are fantasizing about their husbands. Really, truly.

You don’t get it because you have a man’s mind that compartmentalizes everything. That’s OK. God made you that way.

But frankly, I’m getting kind of angry that you keep accusing me of indulging in a near occasion of sin when what I’m actually doing is BEING the WOMAN that GOD created me to be. He gave me this kind of mind that “stretches”. It’s a big mind that doesn’t compartmentalize things, but instead, is like a huge slush pile that includes everything from cooking dinner to making love to reading bacterial cultures at work–ALL AT THE SAME TIME!

That’s the way most women think. It’s utterly baffling to men who don’t think that way and can’t think that way.

This causes a lot of marriages to break up, BTW, because the men think their wives are goofy and unfocused, while the woman thinks her husband is rigid and too serious.

Everyone, please don’t think I’m saying that this is true of all women. In the womb, things happen, and some women come out with a brain that is more like a man’s, and some men come out with a brain that is more like a woman’s. Again, GOD allowed this to happen, and so it’s all good.

Whether sinful, a near occasion to sin or just inappropriate, I’m not going to buy the argument of, “It’s okay because I’m a woman.” Let’s turn it around. I’m a man. A man’s brain is hardwired for visual stimulation. Ergo, porn use is a-okay. I’m going to get angry if you say that me ogling women, going to strip clubs and watching several hours of porn each day is sinful when what I’m actually doing is being the man God created me to be. Now, is that an okay argument? Because if it’s not, then the “I’m a woman” argument needs to be thrown out as well. If it is a valid argument, then I’m going to start sleeping around, too, since science has also shown that men are hardwired to be polygamous. But if we’re called to be more than what our instincts and urges prompt us to be, then it’s completely invalid to justify your actions based on your gender.

Oddly enough, a quick search of the CCC shows me this: “The fifth precept (“You shall observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence.”) ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts; they help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart." So the Church does expect us to have mastery over our instincts. Which brings us back to the question of whether fantasizing about someone other than one’s spouse is an appropriate pastime, regardless of gender and objectively speaking.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

I remember when my husband and I were house hunting.

We had seen a house where the lady of the house had asked us to be very careful when looking at one of the rooms. In the room was a large display of sports memorabilia, signed baseballs, framed photos, autographed photos, photos of a sports figure with the owner of the house. The room was where the husband kept his sports memorabilia and wanted us to be very careful to not disturb these items.

This man was a fan. He was so much of a fan that it worried him that we would harm something.

So was this fellow spending too much time indulging in this pastime? Maybe the fact that he displayed a picture of his favorite sports player meant that he was not paying attention to his wife…or maybe it even meant that he had lustful thoughts about this player?

I wouldn’t have ever jumped to that conclusion.

My son is thirteen. He’s a fan of Derek Jeter and of Andrea Pirlo the Italian soccer player. He has two books about Derek Jeter, and an Andrea Pirlo jersey. I think if he met either one of these guys he would be extremely excited. I’m sure he daydreams about playing with them.

I mentioned Lucy, from I love Lucy. The episodes where they go to California show Lucy trying to meet a variety of stars. She kissed Bill Holden, she tried to break into Van Johnson’s hotel room, she tried to steal John Wayne’s footprints, she climbed over a wall and was trapped on the property of another star whose name escapes me.

Back in the 50’s no one was scandalized and thought, “Lucy is betraying Ricky by being a fan of Van Johnson”

I’m not scandalized by Cat’s admiration of her favorite actor at all.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I remember when my husband and I were house hunting.

We had seen a house where the lady of the house had asked us to be very careful when looking at one of the rooms. In the room was a large display of sports memorabilia, signed baseballs, framed photos, autographed photos, photos of a sports figure with the owner of the house. The room was where the husband kept his sports memorabilia and wanted us to be very careful to not disturb these items.

This man was a fan. He was so much of a fan that it worried him that we would harm something.

So was this fellow spending too much time indulging in this pastime? Maybe the fact that he displayed a picture of his favorite sports player meant that he was not paying attention to his wife…or maybe it even meant that he had lustful thoughts about this player?

I wouldn’t have ever jumped to that conclusion.

My son is thirteen. He’s a fan of Derek Jeter and of Andrea Pirlo the Italian soccer player. He has two books about Derek Jeter, and an Andrea Pirlo jersey. I think if he met either one of these guys he would be extremely excited. I’m sure he daydreams about playing with them.

I mentioned Lucy, from I love Lucy. The episodes where they go to California show Lucy trying to meet a variety of stars. She kissed Bill Holden, she tried to break into Van Johnson’s hotel room, she tried to steal John Wayne’s footprints, she climbed over a wall and was trapped on the property of another star whose name escapes me.

Back in the 50’s no one was scandalized and thought, “Lucy is betraying Ricky by being a fan of Van Johnson”

I’m not scandalized by Cat’s admiration of her favorite actor at all.

Oh, well, that changes everything! Lucy said it’s okay, so it must be. We can’t set the bar any higher than Lucy…

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

Oh, well, that changes everything! Lucy said it’s okay, so it must be. We can’t set the bar any higher than Lucy…

I mention Lucy because the program was made in the 1950’s and was considered a good, wholesome family program. I’ve watched it for years, and it’s one of the first shows my kids were introduced to.

The program avoided scandalizing the viewers so much that they consulted 3 different clergy members to see if the word “pregnant” was proper and ended up not using it. Lucy and Ricky were even depicted sleeping in separate beds in order to not scandalize the viewers.

The viewers were not scandalized by Lucy’s antics in Hollywood. No one thought that Lucy was lusting over John Wayne because she stole his footprints.

 

[Cat]

I remember when my husband and I were house hunting.

We had seen a house where the lady of the house had asked us to be very careful when looking at one of the rooms. In the room was a large display of sports memorabilia, signed baseballs, framed photos, autographed photos, photos of a sports figure with the owner of the house. The room was where the husband kept his sports memorabilia and wanted us to be very careful to not disturb these items.

This man was a fan. He was so much of a fan that it worried him that we would harm something.

So was this fellow spending too much time indulging in this pastime? Maybe the fact that he displayed a picture of his favorite sports player meant that he was not paying attention to his wife…or maybe it even meant that he had lustful thoughts about this player?

I wouldn’t have ever jumped to that conclusion.

My son is thirteen. He’s a fan of Derek Jeter and of Andrea Pirlo the Italian soccer player. He has two books about Derek Jeter, and an Andrea Pirlo jersey. I think if he met either one of these guys he would be extremely excited. I’m sure he daydreams about playing with them.

I mentioned Lucy, from I love Lucy. The episodes where they go to California show Lucy trying to meet a variety of stars. She kissed Bill Holden, she tried to break into Van Johnson’s hotel room, she tried to steal John Wayne’s footprints, she climbed over a wall and was trapped on the property of another star whose name escapes me.

Back in the 50’s no one was scandalized and thought, “Lucy is betraying Ricky by being a fan of Van Johnson”

I’m not scandalized by Cat’s admiration of her favorite actor at all.

Thank you for posting this. It’s excellent. I hope your son gets to meet his favorite athletes someday! And I hope he keeps playing soccer and baseball–these are scholarship sports! He may go to college because of the inspiration of Jeter and Pirlo!

 

[Cat]

Whether sinful, a near occasion to sin or just inappropriate, I’m not going to buy the argument of, “It’s okay because I’m a woman.” Let’s turn it around. I’m a man. A man’s brain is hardwired for visual stimulation. Ergo, porn use is a-okay. I’m going to get angry if you say that me ogling women, going to strip clubs and watching several hours of porn each day is sinful when what I’m actually doing is being the man God created me to be. Now, is that an okay argument? Because if it’s not, then the “I’m a woman” argument needs to be thrown out as well. If it is a valid argument, then I’m going to start sleeping around, too, since science has also shown that men are hardwired to be polygamous. But if we’re called to be more than what our instincts and urges prompt us to be, then it’s completely invalid to justify your actions based on your gender.

Oddly enough, a quick search of the CCC shows me this: “The fifth precept (“You shall observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence.”) ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts; they help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart." So the Church does expect us to have mastery over our instincts. Which brings us back to the question of whether fantasizing about someone other than one’s spouse is an appropriate pastime, regardless of gender and objectively speaking.

It is impossible for a woman not to think on many levels about many things all at the same time. For a woman to try to think like a man, in “compartments” would be denying God’s creation. There is no point to trying to master what God Himself has given her. She can’t help it, any more than she can help having a period.

There’s a huge difference between a woman thinking like a woman and a man getting involved with pornography.

I never said that lust was OK because I’m a woman. I never said that indulging in a near occasion of sin is OK because I’m a woman. If my celeb crushes were a near occasion of sin for me, I would strive to avoid them, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and if I didn’t avoid them, I would be playing with fire. But they are NOT a near occasion of sin for me. They are perfectly innocent, and I am able not only to have fun with them, but to involve my husband and the Lord Jesus Christ in my crushes. I am not ashamed of my crushes and have never been convicted of any wrongdoing when I examine my conscience.

Do you agree that what is a near occasion of sin for some is perfectly OK for others? Or do you think that what is a near occasion of sin for one is a near occasion of sin for all?

E.g., alcohol use–for many people, alcohol is not a near occasion of sin, but for others, it is the first step to hell on earth and hell in the hereafter. That doesn’t mean that alcohol is sinful. It means that those for whom it is a problem should avoid it.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

It is impossible for a woman not to think on many levels about many things all at the same time. For a woman to try to think like a man, in “compartments” would be denying God’s creation. There is no point to trying to master what God Himself has given her. She can’t help it, any more than she can help having a period.

There’s a huge difference between a woman thinking like a woman and a man getting involved with pornography.

If a man thinks like a man, then visual stimulation, lust and a polygamous lifestyle are going to be natural, regular and even daily parts of his life. Why should he try to master or deny what God has given him?

Do you agree that what is a near occasion of sin for some is perfectly OK for others? Or do you think that what is a near occasion of sin for one is a near occasion of sin for all?

E.g., alcohol use–for many people, alcohol is not a near occasion of sin, but for others, it is the first step to hell on earth and hell in the hereafter. That doesn’t mean that alcohol is sinful. It means that those for whom it is a problem should avoid it.

I agree that a near occasion of sin for one may not be for another. That doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate, though, or that it might not cause scandal or possibly develop into something more serious. As an example, when I was in college but before I met my wife, I stayed overnight at a friend’s house. We’d grown up together and she was like a sister to me. To avoid waking the rest of the house I slept in her bed with her. We were fully clothed, back to back, and there was no chance of anything happening. We thought nothing of it, but when our parents found out they went through the roof. Did I do anything wrong? Would it be okay for me to do that now, even if my wife approved? And would I be setting a good example for my kids if I did?

 

[Cat]

If a man thinks like a man, then visual stimulation, lust and a polygamous lifestyle are going to be natural, regular and even daily parts of his life. Why should he try to master or deny what God has given him?

Visual stimulation will be a natural, regular, and daily part of a man’s life, and he can’t change this because it’s the way God created him…

But lust and a polygamous lifestyle are choices that a man makes. Therefore, a man can choose to reject lust and polygamy.

I agree that a near occasion of sin for one may not be for another. That doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate, though, or that it might not cause scandal or possibly develop into something more serious. As an example, when I was in college but before I met my wife, I stayed overnight at a friend’s house. We’d grown up together and she was like a sister to me. To avoid waking the rest of the house I slept in her bed with her. We were fully clothed, back to back, and there was no chance of anything happening. We thought nothing of it, but when our parents found out they went through the roof. Did I do anything wrong? Would it be okay for me to do that now, even if my wife approved? And would I be setting a good example for my kids if I did?

Sleeping with a member of the opposite sex that you are not married to, and crushing on a celeb are not in the same ballpark. When you slept with the woman, you were with a real person, and there was a real opportunity for sexual sin.

But when I crush on a celeb, he is not “real” in my part of the world, and there is no possibility of sex sin, at least for me.

I realize that some people might be in danger of committing the sins of lusting and masturbation when they think about their celeb, but I think this is the exception rather than the rule, especially with women. The whole point of crushing on a celeb is to be “safe” from the possibility of sex–it’s a platonic “relationship”.