It's not "lust" ....it's normal!

[Other_Eric]

Lust is ALWAYS wrong, regardless of who you lust for.

Oh, my heavens, you’re so wrong here, manualman!!!

If you are married, God WANTS you to lust after your wife. Please, slobber away! God gave women a shape, and men an eye that hankers after that shape, PRECISELY BECAUSE, good friend, IT IS HIS DESIGN THAT THEY GET TOGETHER!!!

To say that a wife is meant to be a mere object of lust for her husband rather than respected as an individual in her own right, made in the image and likeness of God, is to denigrate both her, her husband and their union as nothing more than animalism. The husband is not allowed to *lust* after his wife. He is called, rather, to respect her human dignity at all times and never to reduce her to the level of a sexual receptacle.

 

[Wild_Boar]

Proverbs 5 sheds much light on this subject.
There, sexual fulfillment is illustrated by drinking water, an act of satisfying thirst, our most legitimate desire.
vs. 15-18 exhorts men to satisfy sexual desire solely through the legitimate means God has provided, a wife.
“Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well… Should your springs be scattered abroad, streams of water in the streets?..Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
a lovely deer, a graceful doe.”

Next comes the good, lusty part!
vs. 19 “Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.”

Then Solomon brings our dealings with our sexual passions into the light of moral consequences.
vs. 20-21 “Why should you be intoxicated, my son, with a forbidden woman and embrace the bosom of an adulteress? For a man’s ways are before the eyes of the LORD, and he ponders all his paths.”
God is taking into account the use of our sexual drives. Solomon’s exhortation to be satisfied by our wives breasts is apparently one such use!

 

[Wild_Boar]

Furthermore, God’s judgment of us includes our thought-life! Matthew 5:28 “But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Who’s breasts do we embrace in our minds? It had better be our wives.

 

[StCsDavid]

On the contrary, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (1) Nowhere have I read any Catholic commentary which tries to explain this passage away as a mere formality or, indeed, does anything but take Christ at His word. Indeed John Paul II himself went to great pains to draw this equivalence. As noted by Christopher West, “We know [lust] as an interior act that can express itself in a “look” even without expressing itself in a bodily act.” (2)

What, therefore, can we say of people who would attempt to minimize or explain away the clear teaching of Christ as interpreted by His vicar on Earth? Doesn’t such a refusal to acknowledge the fault put one in grave danger of presumption, which may lead to refusing the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit and then to final damnation?

(1) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Mat 5:28-29. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm

(2) West, Christopher. Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s “Gospel of the Body”. Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media, 2003. p. 172.

I would have you reflect upon these words by St. Augustine regarding this very passage. This doctor of the Church wisely points out there are few more issues in play:

For there are three things which go to complete sin: the suggestion of, the taking pleasure in, and the consenting to. Suggestion takes place either by means of memory, or by means of the bodily senses, when we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch anything. And if it give us pleasure to enjoy this, this pleasure, if illicit, must be restrained. Just as when we are fasting, and on seeing food the appetite of the palate is stirred up, this does not happen without pleasure; but we do not consent to this liking, and we repress it by the right of reason, which has the supremacy. But if consent shall take place, the sin will be complete, known to God in our heart, although it may not become known to men by deed. There are, then, these steps: the suggestion is made, as it were, by a serpent, that is to say, by a fleeting and rapid, i.e. a temporary, movement of bodies: for if there are also any such images moving about in the soul, they have been derived from without from the body; and if any hidden sensation of the body besides those five senses touches the soul, that also is temporary and fleeting; and therefore the more clandestinely it glides in, so as to affect the process of thinking, the more aptly is it compared to a serpent. - St. Augustine -

 

[TLM08]

That depends entirely on how the man’s mind is working during those examples. If his mind retains the connection between the body parts he is looking at and the entirety that is his wife, no problem. If he’s just getting aroused at the fact that a great body (who cares who’s) is slowly becoming visible layer by layer, then he may, in fact, have a problem on his hands.

During sexual arousal and the intercourse that often follows, men’s focus generally narrows to the physical. It is the female body (face, hair, smile, legs, curves, breasts, etc, etc) that turns men on, thus provoking the male reproductive system to orgasm (and thus introduction of the reproductive elements) For men, sex is really mostly a physical act with someone he deeply loves (his wife).

After sex, in a healthy marriage, the man’s focus once again broadens to encompass the entire person. There is nothing wrong with this and it is not “lust”.

 

[whatevergirl]

***I agree with you on that, TLM…

I think some in this thread are confusing biology with lust. Lust is a purposeful act of the will, to seek out sex with a person for one’s own gratification. It could include lustful stares at someone’s body, or saying something lustful to someone. The intent behind lust is to always gain for one’s self. But biology is how God ‘wired’ us. Men and women are wired differently, when it comes to arousal points. Often, times, women are aroused with words, kind gestures, generousity of their husbands…and men are often aroused by visuals.

Basic biology is not lust. Lust is a purposeful act, designed to objectify the other person, whether in thought, or in the sexual act. Just my two cents.

PS–The only thing I disagree with you on TLM, maybe you could elaborate…is you imply in the beginning of this thread that if a man looks at a woman on the beach, and gets sexual thoughts, that is normal. It is biological to have ‘fleeting thoughts’ of a sexual nature, when we see people are might be attractive to us, who come into our view. BUT…it’s not Christian-like to seek out such things. For example, a man is innocently jogging down the beach, a beautiful woman comes into view…he has a fleeting sexual thought–this would be ‘normal.’ But, if that same man decides…I’m going to plant myself on a bench near the beach to purposely watch the babes stroll by, so I can purposely get aroused…that is not normal, that is lustful.

Do you agree? ***

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Not when you define lust properly.

If you read my post and still feel this way, I pity your wife. Nobodly likes to be reduced to an object. And nobody should.

Even this is “off,” in my opinion.

The old joke in psychology is, “What do women want?”

The answer is, “Women want to be wanted.”

It is natural for a women to be wanted in part because the man finds her physically attractive. It’s not total objectivization. It’s partial. But, it’s essential to the process because Our Holy, Divine Creator designed the process that way.

As a consequence, if you let yourself become an un-physically-fit “fat slob” during your marriage, you are attacking your spouse, and sinning.

It has nothing to do with death and hospital bills. It has to do with her real, pre-wired right to have an attractive member of the opposite sex as her spouse, to lust over and thus partially objectify.

So, I say to my wife, please, admire my body.

It is natural, good, God’s design, and a product of grace.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

To say that a wife is meant to be a mere object of lust for her husband rather than respected as an individual in her own right, made in the image and likeness of God, is to denigrate both her, her husband and their union as nothing more than animalism. The husband is not allowed to lust after his wife. He is called, rather, to respect her human dignity at all times and never to reduce her to the level of a sexual receptacle.

What you are doing here, I think, Eric, dear friend, is radicalizing your portrayal of my analysis, and calling the radicalization defective – secretly, because you have radicalized it.

Do you see me actually saying of my wife, “My wife is a ‘mere’ object of lust.”? I do not say that. Instead, she is an “object” of my lust who is also a person, no less worthy of respect than I.

Therefore, I say to those here who lust after their respected spouses, “Slobber away!!!”

 

[manualman]

During sexual arousal and the intercourse that often follows, men’s focus generally narrows to the physical. It is the female body (face, hair, smile, legs, curves, breasts, etc, etc) that turns men on, thus provoking the male reproductive system to orgasm (and thus introduction of the reproductive elements) For men, sex is really mostly a physical act with someone he deeply loves (his wife).

After sex, in a healthy marriage, the man’s focus once again broadens to encompass the entire person. There is nothing wrong with this and it is not “lust”.

I guess I pity your wife too. She’s in for a world of hurting once age and gravity start catching up with her. Since for you the focus changes from your wife as a total person to your wife as a nice body to enjoy during sex and only changes pack into a person afterwards, what will become of your sex life when her body doesn’t match up with what you see on the beach??

I suggest looking a bit deeper. In a healthy marriage, one’s wife’s body is an inseparable part of HER. Thus, stretch marks and a whole host of other things that time, age and experience bring don’t cause her to be LESS sexy, they are part of her story that you’ve been a part of and have been together through and a strange thing happens: She ends up hotter than those young, firm girls flaunting it on the beach.

That ain’t just physical, my friend and it ain’t lust either. It’s a whole lot better.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

***I agree with you on that, TLM…

I think some in this thread are confusing biology with lust. Lust is a purposeful act of the will, to seek out sex with a person for one’s own gratification. It could include lustful stares at someone’s body, or saying something lustful to someone. The intent behind lust is to always gain for one’s self. But biology is how God ‘wired’ us. Men and women are wired differently, when it comes to arousal points. Often, times, women are aroused with words, kind gestures, generousity of their husbands…and men are often aroused by visuals.

Basic biology is not lust. Lust is a purposeful act, designed to objectify the other person, whether in thought, or in the sexual act. Just my two cents.

PS–The only thing I disagree with you on TLM, maybe you could elaborate…is you imply in the beginning of this thread that if a man looks at a woman on the beach, and gets sexual thoughts, that is normal. It is biological to have ‘fleeting thoughts’ of a sexual nature, when we see people are might be attractive to us, who come into our view. BUT…it’s not Christian-like to seek out such things. For example, a man is innocently jogging down the beach, a beautiful woman comes into view…he has a fleeting sexual thought–this would be ‘normal.’ But, if that same man decides…I’m going to plant myself on a bench near the beach to purposely watch the babes stroll by, so I can purposely get aroused…that is not normal, that is lustful.

Do you agree? ***

I really like your response, but what’s always confused me is the question of just how, in fact, “God ‘wired’ us.” There’s a school of thought that what we today assume to be our “God-given” biological / sexual responses - even within marriage - are in fact a product of the Fall and reflect our fallen, sinful natures - not what God intended nor how He wanted reproduction to “work.” I believe some Early Church Fathers held the opinion that relations should be brief, rational, infrequent, and dispassionate, and not carnal as the pagans practiced. Even the Catechism states that within marriage there should be a rule of “just moderation” when it came to physical pleasure within marriage. I wish I knew what that meant.

Anyway, the whole question of just where the line was between what degree of physical pleasure / arousal / licit enjoyment of and even looking at one’s spouse was acceptable to the Church, vs. sinfully over-enjoying the physical / erotic aspects of marriage – I remain confused as to where that line is. And yes, I’ve read West, and am not comfortable with what I found there. I guess I just have a problem separating our “fallen biology” from the idea of “lust.”

 

[Peter_Dawson]

That ain’t just physical, my friend and it ain’t lust either. It’s a whole lot better.

When you say, “It ain’t JUST physical,” you imply the contrapositive, “Yes, it is indeed, SOMEWHAT physical.” Whether YOU call it “lust” or “not,” I DO. So does every other normal human talker out there. Custom defines words, although we can, with notice that avoids miscommunication, use special definitions, when we communicate.

So, using the customary definition of lust – functionally, aroused prurient interest – go ahead, lust away after your spouse. God wants you to. He designed us that way.

 

[whatevergirl]

What you are doing here, I think, Eric, dear friend, is radicalizing your portrayal of my analysis, and calling the radicalization defective – secretly, because you have radicalized it.

Do you see me actually saying of my wife, “My wife is a ‘mere’ object of lust.”? I do not say that. Instead, she is an “object” of my lust who is also a person, no less worthy of respect than I.

Therefore, I say to those here who lust after their respected spouses, “Slobber away!!!”

***If Jesus were before you, would you say this? I ask that with charity. We are to grow in holiness **in and out *****of the bedroom. I am not holy out of the bedroom, than when my dh and I step into it…no holds barred. My dh and I grappled with this for a while…we viewed sex as lustful…as serving one another, in pleasure (only). And also for the purpose of having children, but our gratification seemed paramount. It’s way more than that. It’s way more than my husband looking at me, thinking I’m attractive, and becoming aroused…it’s way more than me becoming aroused and being gratified. It’s a connection between two people who love one another, and culminate that love through an act like no other.

“Slobbering” is something a teenage boy/girl does who hasn’t yet figured out how to control him/herself.

 

[whatevergirl]

When you say, “It ain’t JUST physical,” you imply the contrapositive, “Yes, it is indeed, SOMEWHAT physical.” Whether YOU call it “lust” or “not,” I DO. So does every other normal human talker out there. Custom defines words, although we can, with notice that avoids miscommunication, use special definitions, when we communicate.

So, using the customary definition of lust – functionally, aroused prurient interest – go ahead, lust away after your spouse. God wants you to. He designed us that way.

***What are you saying? Jesus doesn’t ‘instruct’ us to lust after our spouses. Please stop posting falsehoods about the faith. And lust doesn’t mean how you personally choose to define it…it has an objective meaning, which is why Jesus cautioned people not to lust after one another. ***

 

[Peter_Dawson]

If Jesus were before you, would you say this?

Yes.

 

[whatevergirl]

***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.

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you. For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness." (1 Thes 4:3-7)***

For you to read, Peter. Lust is not healthy. The reason being is that when we lust after even our own spouse, our appetites will not be satiated. Our thoughts will start wondering…our impulses will be less controlled…Lusting after one’s spouse causes us to misuse marital sexuality–seeking to serve ourselves. Is sex gratifying with one’s spouse? Yes it is in physical and emotional ways. The Catholic Church believes that lusting after one’s spouse is unholy, and unclean…there is a difference between DESIRE and lust. Perhaps, you mean you desire your wife…that is acceptable, and ‘normal.’ Lust is not acceptable in the eyes of the Church, no matter what we say about it…or how we justify it in our minds.

Just sharing.

 

[whatevergirl]

Yes.

***You’d tell Our Lord and Savior that it’s okay if you lust after your wife. Okay. ***

 

[Peter_Dawson]

What are you saying? Jesus doesn’t ‘instruct’ us to lust after our spouses. Please stop posting falsehoods about the faith. And lust doesn’t mean how you personally choose to define it…it has an objective meaning, which is why Jesus cautioned people not to lust after one another.

Hi, whatever girl.

(a) You say, “What are you saying? Jesus doesn’t ‘instruct’ us to lust after our spouses.” Functionally, God does instruct us to lust after our spouses. I’m sorry, but this is true.

Lust of a husband for his wife is a sacred process created by our Holy God. Inside of the lust is a picture of Christ’s love for His Church. It is a noble thing. This, the inspired book of the Bible, the Song of Songs, is a collection of expressions of lustful sexual desire by Solomon for his Bride which is a picture of Christ’s love for His Church.

The Sacrament of Matrimony is the institution instituted by Christ to regulate, but NOT ELIMINATE, marital lust.

Marital lust is good. Not bad. Slobber away.

(b) You say, “Please stop posting falsehoods about the faith.” One person’s “falsehood” is another person’s opinion.

Innately, we normal mortals can’t rise above opinion. That is one of the reasons why “faith” and “grace” and “trust” exist. My words are my opinion, but in my opinion so are your words describing my words as “falsehoods” which I must “stop.”

I humbly, gently and lovingly appreciate the fact that you might find my opinion “offensive,” but the trick, in a religious website, is to take to heart the centuries old advice, “In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas.” In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; in all things, charity.

Form your opinions slowly, dear friend. I mentor Bible study. I’ve done it for a good 20 years now. You’d be surprised at the number of things participants regarded as “gospel” which turned out to be wrong.

(c) You say, “And lust doesn’t mean how you personally choose to define it…it has an objective meaning,” Well, words are customs. Word customs generally reliably establish meaning in relaxed human communication. But sometimes not.

And then there are legal, technical and theological definitions. For example, where the word users personally choose the definition. Aquinas’ Summa is jammed with almost incomprehensible definitions personally chosen by Aquinas, himself. This isn’t because he is a bad man, but rather because word customs don’t exist for some ideas in theology, because people don’t normally talk about some ideas in theology.

In physics, we see the same thing. “Strangeness,” for instance, means one thing in common parlance, and something completely different in particle physics – it is a word describing particle self-destruction, or “decay,” tendencies.

In common parlance, “lust” generally refers to “an arousal of prurient interest in humans.” Between consenting spouses, this is PERFECTLY legitimate!!! It is a God-created, God-ordained, God-blessed, God-inspired process. He gives us GRACE so that we will do it well!

(d) You say, “which is why Jesus cautioned people not to lust after one another.” Please, cite Chapter and Verse where you say that He condemns lustful thoughts about one’s spouse, and we will review them, gentle friend.

 

[manualman]

When you say, “It ain’t JUST physical,” you imply the contrapositive, “Yes, it is indeed, SOMEWHAT physical.” Whether YOU call it “lust” or “not,” I DO. So does every other normal human talker out there. Custom defines words, although we can, with notice that avoids miscommunication, use special definitions, when we communicate.

So, using the customary definition of lust – functionally, aroused prurient interest – go ahead, lust away after your spouse. God wants you to. He designed us that way.

OK, I’ve decided your entire problem is one of vocabulary, not substance. You insist on using a locker room defintion for the word “lust” instead of the actual definition of the word.

Humans are a union of body and soul. Lust, by definition, is the disordered focus on the physical to the exclusion of the person (soul). Healthy passion between spouses includes BOTH the body AND soul of the one desired. THAT is what God wants. By Scripture and Tradition, God demonstrably does NOT want you to “lust” for your wife. He wants you to have a passion for her, body and soul. I think you get that, you just insist on using the word “lust” for what should be called “passion.”

What I DO wonder is if you are just trying to make interesting points with colorful language or if you genuinely think “slobbering over” one’s spouse makes her feel loved and respected. Wives CAN feel like sexual objects and it is a husband’s job to make sure that his sexual expressions make the whole woman feel loved, not used.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

***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.

---

When sexual pleasure is sought for itself, but NOT isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes, it is not disordered.

God made sex pleasurable so that we would seek it.

 

[whatevergirl]

It appears that you define lust the way I define desire. But lust in the objective definition is not acceptable by The Church…Lust how you define it, to mean desiring one’s spouse in a pure and natural way, is acceptable. But, really, that’s not how the Church defines it…you know that.