Dating

[thomfra]

Wow. Way to be charitable. If you would have read my post, you would realize that I am distinguishing between being desired sexually and lust. We simply disagree. In fact, the Catechism seems to disagree as well, and gives us a very good definition of lust.

2351: Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

Therefore. Lust is NOT equivalent to mere sexual desire, and is a sin.

God bless!

I am aware of the difference in the definitions given by the Catholic church. Leaving pro-creation aside, there is nobody who can distinguish between lust and sexual desire with somebody they love. They are one in the same. The definition above is merely a way of saying “don’t objectify your partner”. Adn what prey tell is inordinate enjoyment. HA! I’d like to see that defined. Perhaps you can help with that?

 

[thomfra]

I’ve been married 20 years, and I can in all honesty tell you that I would take my wife looking at me with respect, regard, and admiration a hundred times over her looking at me with lust. Sure, it’s flattering that she still finds me attractive, but the real core of our relationship hinges on something far deeper.

What I’m saying StCsDavid, is that a bit of lust thrown in with the respect, regard, and admiration isn’t a bad thing. Like you say “it’s flattering that she still finds you attractive”. i assume you mean physically, sexually attractive by this.

 

[elts1956]

Wow. Way to be charitable. If you would have read my post, you would realize that I am distinguishing between being desired sexually and lust. We simply disagree. In fact, the Catechism seems to disagree as well, and gives us a very good definition of lust.

2351: Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

Therefore. Lust is NOT equivalent to mere sexual desire, and is a sin.

God bless!

Okay, question from a female here. Do a husband and wife sin when they want to pleasure one another while practicing natural birth control? They don’t want to get pregnant, but they do want to enjoy one another sexually. So how does the church rule this?

 

[davidv]

Okay, question from a female here. Do a husband and wife sin when they want to pleasure one another while practicing natural birth control? They don’t want to get pregnant, but they do want to enjoy one another sexually. So how does the church rule this?

I believe this to be masturbation, which the Church defines as sinful.

 

[thomfra]

I believe this to be masturbation, which the Church defines as sinful.

I think you are a bit quick there. Depends on what they do. Give her a chance.

 

[bugz2007]

I am aware of the difference in the definitions given by the Catholic church. Leaving pro-creation aside, there is nobody who can distinguish between lust and sexual desire with somebody they love. They are one in the same. The definition above is merely a way of saying “don’t objectify your partner”. Adn what prey tell is inordinate enjoyment. HA! I’d like to see that defined. Perhaps you can help with that?

Point being that the Church defines lust in these scenarios as objectifying the partner. Therefore, there is a difference between sinful lust and sexual desire from a moral standpoint. And it is those objectifying, lustful eyes that I would never wish to fall upon me.

And discussing inordinate enjoyment of the act itself would be beyond the scope of this discussion, as this thread pertains to the dating relationship.

As for answering the OP, find her attractive and ask her out, that’s fine and dandy. But if your thoughts are consumed with thoughts of the bedroom, this would be an occasion for sin and may keep you from being able to deepen the relationship and guide it toward a healthy married relationship. After all, there’s more to a healthy marriage than sex, desire or not.

 

[StCsDavid]

What I’m saying StCsDavid, is that a bit of lust thrown in with the respect, regard, and admiration isn’t a bad thing. Like you say “it’s flattering that she still finds you attractive”. i assume you mean physically, sexually attractive by this.

I know what you mean; however, you might discover as you get a little older that the passions of youth were distractions from the true reality of love. Save this thread and re-read it ten years from now, and see if your ardent defense for the goodness of lust still makes sense.

Was Christ speaking in error in Matthew 5:28? Was John speaking out of turn in 1 John 2:16? Or maybe Paul just got in all wrong in 1 Thessalonians 4:5. Then again, our first Pope, Peter could have been speaking out of turn in 2 Peter 2:10, yes? And I suppose Tobias was insincere in his prayer to God in Tobit 8:7, right?

So you see my friend, I have all of these great men, one of whom had a Divine Nature telling me that lust is not a good thing…and then I have Thomfra saying that a little lust is okay. Forgive me if I offend; however, I’m going to have to stick with the Savior and the Saints on this one.

 

[thomfra]

I know what you mean; however, you might discover as you get a little older that the passions of youth were distractions from the true reality of love. Save this thread and re-read it ten years from now, and see if your ardent defense for the goodness of lust still makes sense.

Was Christ speaking in error in Matthew 5:28? Was John speaking out of turn in 1 John 2:16? Or maybe Paul just got in all wrong in 1 Thessalonians 4:5. Then again, our first Pope, Peter could have been speaking out of turn in 2 Peter 2:10, yes? And I suppose Tobias was insincere in his prayer to God in Tobit 8:7, right?

So you see my friend, I have all of these great men, one of whom had a Divine Nature telling me that lust is not a good thing…and then I have Thomfra saying that a little lust is okay. Forgive me if I offend; however, I’m going to have to stick with the Savior and the Saints on this one.

That’s ardent defense of a little bit of lust actually.
Who knows. Maybe I’ll be a saint one day? he he. To be honest, I think it’s all just semantics. I could easily have replaced the word lust with sexual desire and there wouldn’t have been a discussion. My main point is that there is no real difference.

 

[thomfra]

Point being that the Church defines lust in these scenarios as objectifying the partner. Therefore, there is a difference between sinful lust and sexual desire from a moral standpoint. And it is those objectifying, lustful eyes that I would never wish to fall upon me.

Again. sexual desire/lust - really no difference. Just semantics. Impossible to distinguish between when it happens.

And discussing inordinate enjoyment of the act itself would be beyond the scope of this discussion, as this thread pertains to the dating relationship…

So do you have an understanding of what inordinate enjoyment means then? I can’t really see how one could notice the difference in real life, in the average healthy relationship.

After all, there’s more to a healthy marriage than sex, desire or not.

Totally agree.

 

[GraceDK]

Is there anything wrong with asking a girl on a date because she is attractive. At that point, you wouldn’t know her to know anything beyond appearance (like personality, etc.).

The relationship would be intended to be completely chaste.

You can… and if she says yes then I dont see the problem. However, if I were that girl I would not want to be asked out only because of my looks.
Are you looking for a relationship with her appearance or with her personality… her soul…? WHO is she… are you interested in that?
You know the golden rule: treat others like you want to be treated.
You sound like you are a bit superficial to me.
You find appearance more important than the soul? is she a Christian… ?

hmm… I am on deep water here… dont quite get where you are coming from …

 

[briang72]

Wow. Way to be charitable. If you would have read my post, you would realize that I am distinguishing between being desired sexually and lust. We simply disagree. In fact, the Catechism seems to disagree as well, and gives us a very good definition of lust.

2351: Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

Therefore. Lust is NOT equivalent to mere sexual desire, and is a sin.

God bless!

Gotta love that Catechism

 

[elts1956]

I believe this to be masturbation, which the Church defines as sinful.

From what I read from your post, the only time it is not sinful to have sex with your married partner is when the female is fertle. Is that what you meant?

 

[thomfra]

Gotta love that Catechism

Don’t you read the post before you write??? We all know what churches stance is re division between sexual desire and lust… …

This is what we are debating. Don’t you get that?

 

[briang72]

Don’t you read the post before you write??? We all know what churches stance is re division between sexual desire and lust… …

This is what we are debating. Don’t you get that?

Excuse me for commenting. I wasn’t aware this was your thread.

Yes, I read the post. It started as a question of whether it was okay to ask a girl on a date because of her looks, but then it was hijacked into a discussion on lust. The OP never said he lusted after her, but somebody warned against that happening.

Forgive me for loving the Catechism.

 

[thomfra]

Excuse me for commenting. I wasn’t aware this was your thread.

Yes, I read the post. It started as a question of whether it was okay to ask a girl on a date because of her looks, but then it was hijacked into a discussion on lust. The OP never said he lusted after her, but somebody warned against that happening.

Forgive me for loving the Catechism.

What exactly was the purpose of your comment then?

 

[briang72]

What exactly was the purpose of your comment then?

I thought it was a great post. Hence the . There was obviously some confusion about what “lusting” really means. It isn’t a type of look someone gives you, its what is going on in their heart. I disagree whole-heartedly with your “sexual desire = lust” argument. Lust is spelled out in the Catechism as a disordered sexual desire. So, what you are saying is that all sexual desires are disordered.

 

[thomfra]

I thought it was a great post. Hence the . There was obviously some confusion about what “lusting” really means. It isn’t a type of look someone gives you, its what is going on in their heart. I disagree whole-heartedly with your “sexual desire = lust” argument. Lust is spelled out in the Catechism as a disordered sexual desire. So, what you are saying is that all sexual desires are disordered.

What part to you disagree with? Give me some concrete examples of when you have lusted after your wife instead of finding her sexually attractive…and what the difference was “in your heart”…and when you enjoyed the sex too much…

 

[briang72]

What part to you disagree with? Give me some concrete examples of when you have lusted after your wife instead of finding her sexually attractive…and what the difference was “in your heart”…and when you enjoyed the sex too much…

What if a spouse decides to divorce based on the lack of sex in a marriage? Would you not consider that lust? I would say that is a disordered sexual desire when it leads to such conclusions. Basically the spouse is saying “if we cannot have sex, then I don’t want any part of you”.

I don’t think of lust as something measured in the enjoyment of the act. I think lust enters in when your spouse’s attraction is all that you see, and you stop caring about the person behind the physical appearance, and care only about satisfying your sexual “needs”.

 

[thomfra]

What if a spouse decides to divorce based on the lack of sex in a marriage? Would you not consider that lust? I would say that is a disordered sexual desire when it leads to such conclusions. Basically the spouse is saying “if we cannot have sex, then I don’t want any part of you”.

I don’t think of lust as something measured in the enjoyment of the act. I think lust enters in when your spouse’s attraction is all that you see, and you stop caring about the person behind the physical appearance, and care only about satisfying your sexual “needs”.

In both of the cases you describe, there is the absence of love. Case 2, is merely a case of objectification, and lack of love. i.e. you don’t really love them if this is the way you think.

And RE enjoyment of sex. Well then what is the catholic church definition? Inordinate enjoyment of the sexual act (or something undefinable like that).

Basically the church has redefined the word “lust” if you ask me. It’s just semantics, completely subjective too. Basically useless. Would have been better to say “you either love your wife or you don’t”. If you objectify them. Then you don’t love them. Much simpler.

 

[BamaRider]

Is there anything wrong with asking a girl on a date because she is attractive. At that point, you wouldn’t know her to know anything beyond appearance (like personality, etc.).

The relationship would be intended to be completely chaste.

If it was I woulda been in a bunch of trouble.