Distinguishing lust from healthy sexual interest

[VeritasLuxMea]

I’m speaking only of sexual desire/attraction within marriage.

Without going into details, I think we all have an idea what an extreme lust would be like. However, we also know that the holiest couple (Joseph and Mary) did not have relations. So I wonder if there’s a “perfect” model for marital relations out there.

Anyway, I got to thinking. Sexual attraction/desire within marriage must be a good thing, since God made it absolutely 100% necessary to achieve an even greater thing (marital union and pro-creation).

This definitely jives with what my conscience indicates to me, which is that it’s a good thing for a husband to desire a wife and vice versa. But where do you draw the line in the middle? How do you hash out the “gray” areas?

I guess the problem, for me, comes from a bit of (seemingly natural) compartmentalization. I love my spouse, cherish her, we are unified in our values, etc. but in the actual moment of arousal, I don’t see how that kind of abstraction alone can (forgive me for being blunt) cause an erection.

The literature that I’ve read speaks of objectification and such. So if I was going to go the complete opposite route, I would think it sounds like you are supposed to sexually desire the platonic concept of your spouse. However arousal appears to occur on a baser level… at the very least, part of it appears to be similar to a state of hunger or thirst.

My love for her makes me want to spend an eternity with her, for her to gain an eternity (for her soul), that kind of thing. It doesn’t, again forgive me for being blunt, “turn me on.” What actually does “turn me on” is, at least in large part, her physical form - the desire to become one in flesh - the beauty of her form, which is no doubt enhanced by the Sacrament (no one could find her as beautiful as I do.)

So here is where I arrive at my confused destination: sex is a physical endeavor, arousal is largely related to the physical form, and yet when I think of an appreciation for the physical form leading to arousal, that certainly sounds close to the dictionary definition of ‘objectification.’

So clue me in with the plain dumb English that I speak (and not scholarly musings, if possible) as to how to separate lust from healthy sexual interest/desire within marriage?

 

[animalis]

S. Thomas said, “Nevertheless a woman may use means to please her husband, lest through despising her he fall into adultery. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 7:34) that the woman ‘that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband.’” (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 169, a. 2)

Simple enough. You have nothing to worry about. There are certain actions that are against chastity that cannot be undertaken (ie. oral sex).

I think within the framework of the Cardinal Virtues, which should be the guidepost of every catholic’s behavior, is the concept of saying no to excess (temperance).

I do think plain dumb english is a prudent guidepost for salvation. In my opinion, one reason we have such low mass attendance is there is no supernatual power in the homilies and priest’ sacrifical prayer life. This power comes from assent to the supernatual teachings of the Magisterium. Granted in Catechsis it is a different plane.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Simple enough. You have nothing to worry about. There are certain actions that are against chastity that cannot be undertaken (ie. oral sex).

I would argue against that, so long as it is a precursor, and not the main attraction. If it is used in foreplay, and is entered into freely by both couples, and still leads to a true marital act, then I don’t see how there’s anything wrong with.

This is especially true if both partners enjoy performing the act. I, for one, love performing oral sex on my wife, and she loves receiving. There is no barrier built up because it is just a part of how I express my love for her. If I was doing it but hating it, or were making her receive when she didn’t want to, then it would be detrimental to the marriage; but so long as we are both in for it, then it brings us closer together and allows me to express my love and desire for her in a way that is mutually enjoyable. (After all, if we weren’t meant to enjoy the sexual acts, they wouldn’t feel so good )

Like I said, it still needs to result in an actual conjoining marital act, but so long as it does there’s nothing wrong with it. The same could be said of most fetishes. (barring swingers and their lot.)

 

[105lynne]

What I’m about to say is strictly my opinion…I feel like if your heart is into it and you’re truly in love, then being physically attracted to that person is fine. Physical attraction isn’t something we can really help. And it grows over time, in some cases. I know many people who were friends before dating, and they weren’t attracted to that person until they got to know them. The opposite is true, too. Sometimes there’s intense attraction from the get-go. My opinion is, most (not all) people would find it much more difficult to have sex with someone who they aren’t attracted to. As long as its not ENTIRELY physical, then I don’t think it’s sinful. But, I could be wrong, and if I am I’m SURE someone will correct me. Lol!

 

[savienu]

I would argue against that, so long as it is a precursor, and not the main attraction. If it is used in foreplay, and is entered into freely by both couples, and still leads to a true marital act, then I don’t see how there’s anything wrong with.

This is especially true if both partners enjoy performing the act. I, for one, love performing oral sex on my wife, and she loves receiving. There is no barrier built up because it is just a part of how I express my love for her. If I was doing it but hating it, or were making her receive when she didn’t want to, then it would be detrimental to the marriage; but so long as we are both in for it, then it brings us closer together and allows me to express my love and desire for her in a way that is mutually enjoyable. (After all, if we weren’t meant to enjoy the sexual acts, they wouldn’t feel so good )

Like I said, it still needs to result in an actual conjoining marital act, but so long as it does there’s nothing wrong with it. The same could be said of most fetishes. (barring swingers and their lot.)

This is what I’ve understood as well, but then there does seem to be some controversy regarding whether oral sex is licit or not. It doesn’t appear the church has an official position on the matter, right?

Also- good topic! My husband and I both have less than pristine pasts, so this lust v. healthy sexual attraction is a constant topic of discussion for us.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This is what I’ve understood as well, but then there does seem to be some controversy regarding whether oral sex is licit or not. It doesn’t appear the church has an official position on the matter, right?

So far as I’m aware, the teaching is only in reference to acts that are purely oral, and do not lead to a procreative act.

And, for the OP, sexual attraction within a marriage is important. If you aren’t attracted to your spouse, then its less likely that you’ll freely enter into a sexual act. If you feel like you’re being forced to have sex then it’ll create a barrier between you which is harmful for marriage.

 

[HisIsTheCrown]

I’m speaking only of sexual desire/attraction within marriage.

Without going into details, I think we all have an idea what an extreme lust would be like. However, we also know that the holiest couple (Joseph and Mary) did not have relations. So I wonder if there’s a “perfect” model for marital relations out there.

Anyway, I got to thinking. Sexual attraction/desire within marriage must be a good thing, since God made it absolutely 100% necessary to achieve an even greater thing (marital union and pro-creation).

This definitely jives with what my conscience indicates to me, which is that it’s a good thing for a husband to desire a wife and vice versa. But where do you draw the line in the middle? How do you hash out the “gray” areas?

I guess the problem, for me, comes from a bit of (seemingly natural) compartmentalization. I love my spouse, cherish her, we are unified in our values, etc. but in the actual moment of arousal, I don’t see how that kind of abstraction alone can (forgive me for being blunt) cause an erection.

The literature that I’ve read speaks of objectification and such. So if I was going to go the complete opposite route, I would think it sounds like you are supposed to sexually desire the platonic concept of your spouse. However arousal appears to occur on a baser level… at the very least, part of it appears to be similar to a state of hunger or thirst.

My love for her makes me want to spend an eternity with her, for her to gain an eternity (for her soul), that kind of thing. It doesn’t, again forgive me for being blunt, “turn me on.” What actually does “turn me on” is, at least in large part, her physical form - the desire to become one in flesh - the beauty of her form, which is no doubt enhanced by the Sacrament (no one could find her as beautiful as I do.)

So here is where I arrive at my confused destination: sex is a physical endeavor, arousal is largely related to the physical form, and yet when I think of an appreciation for the physical form leading to arousal, that certainly sounds close to the dictionary definition of ‘objectification.’

So clue me in with the plain dumb English that I speak (and not scholarly musings, if possible) as to how to separate lust from healthy sexual interest/desire within marriage?

I studied and author called Derrida and he says that distinctions are the problem. If a hen puts an egg in Ottawa it is a Canadian Egg. If the hen puts an egg in Manhattan (if she is able to survive the traffic !) the egg is American. But if she puts the egg exactly on the Canadian-American border, whose egg is that one?. The problem is that the border between Canada and America makes no sense for the hen, it is a man-made invention.

On think is prostitution. It is clear that that is not what Christ wants. Another thing is Joseph and Mary, a perfect couple, but it is not on our level.

The distinction you are making does not exist. You are thinking too much…

Give thanks to God that you are attracted to your wife. Stop speaking about “objectification” : that is intended for “free love” for marketing based on “sex” and so on. You are years light from that.

To love your wife you need a soul. But souls, like angels, do not have sex. Do not get “erections”. To have sex, you need a body, which a body like the body of any animal. simply you are not holy animal, but soul and christian.

Boy, give thanks to God for being so much physically attracted to your wife. Go ahead: that is sacred and wished by God. thank for that to God for you are blessed !

 

[JRKH]

Here is my humble opinion…

Lust, by definition is a disordered desire…So the question would be - what is “disordered” within marriage…There are obvious things but then - as you say - there are things that are not so obvious…they might be disordered or they might not be. How does one tell?

My answer is formed from the idea that “The two shall become one flesh” - not simply the conjugal - physical - sense but in the larger emotional and spiritual sense.
If something (licit) is desired and seen as acceptable by both - then it is not lustful.

As a “silly” example…you see your wife step out of the shower and you whistle at her or give some other indication that you find her desirable…What is her reaction? If she gives a positive response then you have not “lusted” for you have not offended part of the “one flesh” and the attraction is "ordered’ within your marriage.
If she finds such things to be a “turn-off”…well then this is something that would be “dis-ordered” within your marriage since it offends part of the “one flesh”.

But let me be clear - we are talking here about things that are licit to begin with…

Not sure if I’m being clear here…But I hope it is of some help.

Peace
James

 

[MarcoPolo]

If you are interested in in-depth theology, I believe the following from Dr. Alice von Hildebrand is quite sober:

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand approaches to love

 

[RPRPsych]

If you are interested in in-depth theology, I believe the following from Dr. Alice von Hildebrand is quite sober:

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand approaches to love

Wonderful article Marco, thanks for sharing this!

I think the author of this piece, as both a married woman and a theologian in her own right, is able to combine personal experience and traditional Catholic teaching about marriage. The issue is not so much “can I do X?” (a question we often see popping up here) as “is X consistent with the Catholic understanding of marriage, or does it betray an overly secular and media-influenced approach to sex and sexuality?” The pleasures of this life are best enjoyed in moderation, and with due reverence to the God who gave them to us. I think it’s good to be reminded of that.