Definition of lust

[thomasf]

I had this discussion with a mormon friend of mine the other day. I’m always interested in his religion’s stance on sexuality, since he claims the lds church is so close to catholicism on so many things.

What is the definition of lust? It is my contention that lust must contain the desire for sexual activity with a person, or a coveting of a person for the sexual act. And because of that, I don’t necessarily agree that simply admiring someone for their ‘assets’ is always lust. There has been many a time that I’ve admired someone for their beauty or ‘assets’ without desiring sexual activities with them.

At the same time, I desire sexual activites with my wife because of my love for her and the ant to be closer to her. Is that lust? I love her, I find her beautiful, and she stirs sexual feelings in me, but I wouldn’t necessarily describe that as lust.

Just curious.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

What is the definition of lust? It

From the CCC:

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.

 

[thomasf]

So if you do not desire sexual pleasure from a woman but rather just admire her beauty, it is not lust. If you do not get sexual pleasure from admiring a woman’s beauty, it is not lust. If you do not desire a woman for sexual pleasure, it is not lust.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

I would like to add that–even if it is not lustful–an appreciative glance (or lingering gaze, whichever) can still be contrary to human dignity in many situations. Just because a thought or action isn’t lustful doesn’t necessarily mean it’s particularly respectful or prudent. It can even be sinful–just perhaps under a different commandment.

So “I’m not lusting” isn’t a free pass to appreciate the scenery with impunity. Especially when one is married, one owes one’s spouse a certain level of respect, and reserving certain kinds of appreciations for one’s spouse should be a part of that respect, IMHO.

 

[Potato1]

I would like to add that–even if it is not lustful–an appreciative glance (or lingering gaze, whichever) can still be contrary to human dignity in many situations. Just because a thought or action isn’t lustful doesn’t necessarily mean it’s particularly respectful or prudent. It can even be sinful–just perhaps under a different commandment.

So “I’m not lusting” isn’t a free pass to appreciate the scenery with impunity. Especially when one is married, one owes one’s spouse a certain level of respect, and reserving certain kinds of appreciations for one’s spouse should be a part of that respect, IMHO.

Exactly and if I caught the OP or anyone else admiring my daughter’s or wifes “assets” Someone would be punched in the face.
“excuse me ma’am I dont sexually want you but you have a nice rack” doesn’t cut it morally.

 

[thomasf]

Exactly and if I caught the OP or anyone else admiring my daughter’s or wifes “assets” Someone would be punched in the face.
“excuse me ma’am I dont sexually want you but you have a nice rack” doesn’t cut it morally.

So you would counter a possible sin with a violent sin? I wonder which will come first in confession.

Do you dress your wife or daughter in potato sacks when they go out? Because it’s not a matter of oogling or drooling or saying “nice rack.” People see and look at each other all day long. That’s my point. You can admire someone’s beauty without being a pervert in a trench coat. And it is not disrespectful to your wife or the other person to recognize beauty in others.

 

[Cygnus_X1]

As a recovering sexaholic, I like this definition of lust:

“Lust is wanting anything else besides God’s will for me today.”

 

[Potato1]

So you would counter a possible sin with a violent sin? I wonder which will come first in confession.

Do you dress your wife or daughter in potato sacks when they go out? Because it’s not a matter of oogling or drooling or saying “nice rack.” People see and look at each other all day long. That’s my point. You can admire someone’s beauty without being a pervert in a trench coat. And it is not disrespectful to your wife or the other person to recognize beauty in others.

Firstly, I do not “dress my wife” She can dress herself thank you very much. And she does very nicely. And I do not feel there is a violent sin here. It is defense of honor, if you wish I could educate you on honor, the non objectification of humans, and where your eyes should be. The very fact that you feel it is a sin for a father to protect his daughters is part of the problem in society. Shame on you, you can look at beuty, I look at it every day with other women but if you are staring at the bulge in her chest you are crossing the line into scuzville.

 

[Potato1]

So you would counter a possible sin with a violent sin? I wonder which will come first in confession.

Do you dress your wife or daughter in potato sacks when they go out? Because it’s not a matter of oogling or drooling or saying “nice rack.” People see and look at each other all day long. That’s my point. You can admire someone’s beauty without being a pervert in a trench coat. And it is not disrespectful to your wife or the other person to recognize beauty in others.

Hey, it is your objectification of women, moral realativism and especially… weakness not mine. I admire beauty without my eyes following bounce of a silk shirt.

 

[Trelow]

So you would counter a possible sin with a violent sin? I wonder which will come first in confession.

It’s not sinful to protect those under your care with physical force. I’d argue that it’s sinful not to, provided that the situation would call for such.