D
- Status
P
PennitentMan
Guest
She knew that I meant that she looks beautiful and attractive. I acknowledged that to her, and she accepted it as a compliment and we moved on…
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
P
PennitentMan
Guest
Is there any other kind for guys?
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Not really, but I am open to other people’s meanings, so I wanted to ask.
I am not so sure that telling a girl (who is not my wife, or at least my intended), that I had a biological urge to have sexual relations with her, is a good thing. At the very least, that would appear to be an occasion for sin.
Beautiful is OK by me, for that does not necessarily mean the beauty is sexual. But to say a woman is sexually attractive is a cloaked way of saying, “my body wants to join with your body”. Just because a woman does not take offense at that, does not mean it is right.
Dan
P
PennitentMan
Guest
With respect, that is actually not what I said.
I posted the same thing earlier in this thread…finding someone attractive is something you can’t do anything about. When you act on that knowledge…physically or mentally, that is when you sin…
Even though I found her attractive, it’s not like I told her Iwanted to sleep with her, ir even thought that way about her. I merely complimented her and she accepted it.
I cuold respectfully disagree here…again I say, that one can find someone sexually attractive, but it doesn’t mean that you want to sleep with them…it’s what you do with the knowledge that counts.
PM
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
What is the defintion for ‘sexually attractive’? If the attraction is sexual, can it mean something other than a physical desire to have sex?
I have no debate here. But you do have a choice of whether to say anything or not. That is what this thread is all about. Not the thinking, but the speaking.
Speaking is an act. It can be a sin.
I do not necessarily disagree with you. I know that you did not tell her that your conscious self wanted to sleep with her. But to tell a woman that she is sexually attractive is to tell her that biologically, or emotionally, the urge is there. From wikipedia (perhaps not authoritative, but certainly representative of conventional wisdom)
I don’t disagree. But speaking is part of “what you do with the knowledge.” Even if we feel that way, and even if we feel they would be complimented by us telling them our natural desires towards them, it is not reasonable to assume that such action is OK.
Dan
C
cor
Guest
I agree with PennitentMan.
I would also say that sexuality is deeper and broader than just sexual intercourse. It’s a way of being. One can find a woman sexually attractive without having at all a desire to have sexual intercourse with her. Finding a woman sexually attractive could mean 1) desiring something that doesn’t involve the sexual faculties like holding hands OR 2) simply being pleased at the sight of her.
There’s nothing wrong with being pleased at the sight of someone. It’s a form of joy.
I would also say that sexuality is deeper and broader than just sexual intercourse. It’s a way of being. One can find a woman sexually attractive without having at all a desire to have sexual intercourse with her. Finding a woman sexually attractive could mean 1) desiring something that doesn’t involve the sexual faculties like holding hands OR 2) simply being pleased at the sight of her.
There’s nothing wrong with being pleased at the sight of someone. It’s a form of joy.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Have you created your own definition of ‘sexually attractive’? When I went looking, in an attempt to thoroughly understand the term before using it, I did not find any such defintion as you seem to be using.
You seem to jump between referencing beauty and sexual attraction, as if they are the same. They are not the same, but very different. In some cases, they may be related, but that does not mean they are the same.
To the original post. “Hot” has a specific connotation. I think Pennitent had that right.
I really doubt that if anyone calls a girl ‘hot’, that they mean they want to just hold hands with her.
Dan
C
cor
Guest
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen women (not lesbians) describe other women as “hot”. Is that wrong also? If that’s not wrong, why would it be wrong for a guy to do the same (call another woman “hot”)?
I don’t say that beauty and sexual attractiveness is the same. But I would say that sexual attractiveness is a kind or form of beauty. It’s either a form of beauty or a form of ugliness – and it’s certainly not a form of ugliness so it has to be a form of beauty.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
First, I appreciate the discussion.
If one woman (not a lesbian) tells another that she is ‘hot’, don’t we have a completely different situation here, with different intents and circumstances? We established in the first case that the contemporary meaning for a man calling a woman ‘hot’ was one of sexual attraction. This new situation is constructed to prevent that from being the meaning, doesn’t it?
The analogy does not seem to work on another level. Just because it’s OK for a woman to say something to another woman, does not mean its OK for a man to say the same thing to a woman. “Would you like to come over and spend the night with me at my house?” is an example. With this example, too, the meaning changes based upon who says the words.
You may be right, but you need to provide for me a basis, that sexual attraction is either beauty or ugliness. That does not make sense to me. Two magnets attract each other. Is the attraction necessarily beautiful or ugly? Can’t it be neither? Can’t it just be?
Dan
C
cor
Guest
I think you may be right about this point. I don’t see how the essential meaning of the word “hot” changed though. What changed was the context.
I’m going to withdraw my claim that everything is either beautiful or ugly because I’m not so sure about it now. But I say that everything that exists, to the extent that it exists, participates in God’s being. God is Beauty Itself just as he is Goodness Itself and Truth Itself and Love Itself. So all things to the extent to which they exist, participate in Beauty’s being, and are thus beautiful. This would include sexual attraction (which certainly exists) and also the electro-magnetic force (which also certainly exists). Keep in mind that evil is considered to not have substantial existence; evil is rather the lack of a good that ought to be there. So evil is not beautiful. But sexual attraction is good and is beautiful.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
I think I agree. Context may be considered determined by intent and/or circumstance. The morality of an act in many cases cannot be determine by the act alone, but only in reference to intent and circumstance. In this particular case, if the context changes, the morality may also change, if the intent and circumstance changes.
I believe you are correct. For this topic, however, our use of God’s ‘gift’ (sexual attraction) can be ordered or disordered. For example, even though sexual attraction is good, we believe that when applied between two members of the same sex, it is disordered.
A professed sexual attraction to someone who is not our spouse and likely never will be is not ordered to the intent of God’s gift. Sexual attraction was ordained to call spouses together and to keep them together. If neither of these is likely, then professing a physical sexual attraction cannot be good, although it may only qualify as the occasion of sin.
Again, thank you very much for the discussion. I learn from you.
Dan
D
Diddi
Guest
If the woman plays an instrument in a jazz band and has just finished performing, you can tell her she’s “hot” as a compliment and there is nothing wrong with that. The term “hot” means “emotionally exciting” when used to compliment someone. If you call her “hot” and the only things causing the excited emotion are her “hot pants” and tank top, then Dan has it right.
Unfortunately, the term in its sexual context has been so mainstreamed by the media that people use the term casually without even thinking what they are saying. As such the term may be used between two women who are not gay, but just as likely, they are merely telling each other they have achieved the effect they wanted when they dressed like they did.
It’s sort of like when two girlfriends meet nowadays and one says, “hey b****” as a term of endearment. Language evolves. People say things like, “I caught the little bugger” who have never looked the word “bugger” up to find its original meaning.
Unfortunately, the term in its sexual context has been so mainstreamed by the media that people use the term casually without even thinking what they are saying. As such the term may be used between two women who are not gay, but just as likely, they are merely telling each other they have achieved the effect they wanted when they dressed like they did.
It’s sort of like when two girlfriends meet nowadays and one says, “hey b****” as a term of endearment. Language evolves. People say things like, “I caught the little bugger” who have never looked the word “bugger” up to find its original meaning.
R
Reader_Arsenios
Guest
The poll results, kids, are an indictment…
IF they came out of my Church, I would be ashamed of my Church-members…
I mean, only 19% answer yes???
The times are indeed both secular and carnal…
Lord have Mercy!
Arsenios
IF they came out of my Church, I would be ashamed of my Church-members…
I mean, only 19% answer yes???
The times are indeed both secular and carnal…
Lord have Mercy!
Arsenios
R
Reader_Arsenios
Guest
If I walk up to a woman violinist who has just finished playing a concerto, and tell her that she is emotionally exciting to me because of her playing the fiddle???
I mean, you can say the dice are hot, or the one rolling of them is hot, or the music is hot, but NOT that the girl is hot… Because this expresses YOUR emotional excitement over HER… And hence is cheap sensationalism…
To make a long list of exceptions will only muddy any hope one might have of attaining moral clarity and turn Christian ethics into an intellective zoo of “Oh, it all just DEPENDS, you know…”
Your ‘DEPENDS’ are going to be needed soon enough…
Arsenios
G
Greg27
Guest
There are beautiful women also in Church and sometimes it is natural to find some attractive in the sense the eyes delight in their physical beauty. But some women are also very holy, and their holiness compliments or exceeds their physical beauty. I think women who are very holy are also very beautiful, more so than women who are just beautiful in their body but are not also filled with the divine prescence of grace.
H
Habbo
Guest
Is justin timberlakes song bringing sexy back sinful? or no i think sexy could be another word for pretty
M
MariaGorettiGrl
Guest
Ooooh!
Sweet-talker!Gotta admit, I’d rather be told that than be told that I’m hot. But it’s not a sin.
Interesting that the OP only refers to calling girls hot. I’ve been guilty of calling a guy
hot before. :blushing: I don’t think it’s a sin either way.
T
Teeliumtrozzle
Guest
I think so.It implies an unchaste mind.The important thing is to see that she got her beauty from God.The word ‘hot’ does not imply this, and I think ts better if you call her radient or something.
- Status