Agreed, there is lack of love, but are you saying that love is a prerequisite to lust and therefore my example is not one of lust, or are you just making an observation?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.
I don’t believe lust can be measured in the enjoyment of sex alone. Lust requires objectification, not love.And RE enjoyment of sex. Well then what is the catholic church definition? Inordinate enjoyment of the sexual act (or something undefinable like that).
You’re probably on to something here. Objectify is a simpler term and better describes what is happening.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.
Of course there isn’t anything wrong with it. Dating is how you get to know the person.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.
not sure what you mean by prerequisite for love. I can see how lust (with objectification) may exists when you look at people you don’t know, and think of them exclusively as sexual beings etc. But inside of a *loving *marriage, i don’t think lust exists as something seperate to sexual attraction. Some would perhaps disagree.Agreed, there is lack of love, but are you saying that love is a prerequisite to lust and therefore my example is not one of lust, or are you just making an observation?.
Well that’s the thing. I mean why does the church have this phrase on inordinate enjoyment? What do they really mean by that, and when would somebody really know when they crossed the line. Especially those many people here who claim not to belive in the concept of subjective morality etc.I don’t believe lust can be measured in the enjoyment of sex alone. Lust requires objectification, not love.
“Inordinate” is defined as not according to the proper order of things. So believe what you will about it’s regulation of lust within a marriage, but I think “inordinate enjoyment” could refer to enjoyment of the sexual act outside of it’s proper order, which is within a loving marriage.not sure what you mean by prerequisite for love. I can see how lust (with objectification) may exists when you look at people you don’t know, and think of them exclusively as sexual beings etc. But inside of a *loving *marriage, i don’t think lust exists as something seperate to sexual attraction. Some would perhaps disagree.
Well that’s the thing. I mean why does the church have this phrase on inordinate enjoyment? What do they really mean by that, and when would somebody really know when they crossed the line. Especially those many people here who claim not to belive in the concept of subjective morality etc.
Hmmm. Maybe my understanding of the word is “above reasonable limits”. or getting towards too much. for example “an inordinate number of people are injured during skiing season because they don’t warm up…”“Inordinate” is defined as not according to the proper order of things. So believe what you will about it’s regulation of lust within a marriage, but I think “inordinate enjoyment” could refer to enjoyment of the sexual act outside of it’s proper order, which is within a loving marriage.