Looking is immoral!

[clem456]

Don’t. Take it on experience.

Look, I’ve got no problem admitting on an Internet forum that I was addicted to pornography. I still fight this addiction every day. This is lust. This is a disordered desire for pleasure. It’s a compulsion to seek selfish pleasure with no regard for who I could and did hurt. Not my wife, not my kids, not the people being objectified in pictures and videos. Nobody. I only cared about how I could feel good.

When it comes to relations with my wife, I will sorrowfully admit I have approached her with similar desires once or twice in life. I approached her as someone I could use for sex and hey, I was married and in the Church, so it was fine! WRONG

There have also been many, many more times, thankfully, that I’ve wanted to have relations with her because I wanted her to know and feel that I love her. Because I do. Wholeheartedly. Yes, the mating desire is strong and the pleasure of engaging in it reinforces this desire.

But bodily pleasure is not bad! It really isn’t! We get pleasure from eating. We get pleasure from sex. Heck, we get a sense of relief from using the restroom. This is all as God intended. However, the problem comes from overindulging or seeking the pleasure for the sake of the pleasure. Overeating is wrong. Disordered sexual behavior is wrong. Seeking pleasure in general for the sake of itself, not simply enjoying it as a side effect for the intended good, is wrong.

This is good common sense. The eating analogy works very well. (This may be repetitive of your post bucket, but I think the repetition is necessary)
Why do I eat? It is pleasurable for sure. If I eat simply for the pleasure alone, I will overeat and abuse the good, because the pleasure obtained from eating does not stop at the rightful boundary of eating properly. It will drive me through that boundary seeking pleasure. That has consequences. Overweight, abuse of my body, could be a burden on others…etc

I eat because I have an instinct to eat. That instinct is ordered to the good, to be used for it’s purpose, and not simply for pleasure. The higher good is… I am able to sustain my body for God’s work that needs to be done. I don’t simply eat for my own pleasure. There is pleasure in eating, but the pleasure serves the higher good and is not -the- end in itself. It is tough to see the line sometimes, but each one of us will know when right-oriented pleasure turns into disordered lust for food.

If you think people don’t have disorderd lust for food, just walk out onto the sidewalk and prove yourself wrong. So in a similar way, we can misuse the pleasure and desire for sex, even in the context of marriage. This really is not rocket science, it’s common sense. (God-given of course)

 

[clem456]

Clem, I need to correct one thing. And it’s your signature.

We are holy because God loves us. It’s not even that we strive for it or can become it. We are automatically sacred. What we do with that sacred nature, however, is up to us. Be well my friend.

I’m cool with that.

As an aside to other posters: don’t smoke in front of a reformed smoker and expect any quarter to be given…
People who want to argue the Church’s teaching on sexuality should expect a persistent defense from reforming sex addicts like bucket and I, as well as others who know the teaching… We have thuoght about, researched, and disussed these issues a few times, and have first hand knowlege of how this works in real life, both the very good and the very bad. Lust kills people spiritually, ruins families, loses jobs.
I don’t mind if someone has a different belief, but please don’t misrepresent what the Church teaches. That teaching is beautiful and true,and brings people new life, peace, joy, reconciliation.

 

[jimmy]

Is it wrong to drink a coke because it tastes good? Is it wrong to eat a steak because it tastes good? Is it wrong to watch tv because you enjoy it? Is it wrong drink a beer because a couple beers makes you feel good?

This idea of selfless sex, in which we don’t seek our own pleasure, but only to please the other person is nonsensical. There is nothing wrong with seeking something simply fpr the pleasure ot offers, unless you think pleasure is evil. Is there a problem with pleasure? Are we supposed to hate ourselves and our lives? Should it be pure torture, or atleastt a dull and boring drag?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Is it wrong to drink a coke because it tastes good? Is it wrong to eat a steak because it tastes good? Is it wrong to watch tv because you enjoy it? Is it wrong drink a beer because a couple beers makes you feel good?

This idea of selfless sex, in which we don’t seek our own pleasure, but only to please the other person is nonsensical. There is nothing wrong with seeking something simply fpr the pleasure ot offers, unless you think pleasure is evil. Is there a problem with pleasure? Are we supposed to hate ourselves and our lives? Should it be pure torture, or atleastt a dull and boring drag?

Pleasure is not bad, as long at its mutual (not sought for itself) and unnitive and all that between spouses. When that turns into objectification and you see your spouse solely as a sex toy, that is lust and mortally sinful.

Enjoying the can of coke or beer etc doesbt compare, those are objects not people.

 

[jimmy]

Pleasure is not bad, as long at its mutual (not sought for itself) and unnitive and all that between spouses. When that turns into objectification and you see your spouse solely as a sex toy, that is lust and mortally sinful.

Enjoying the can of coke or beer etc doesbt compare, those are objects not people.

The coke and beer is an analogy to show point. Pleasure sought for itself isn’t a bad thing. The only reason why I would ever drink a coke is because it tastes good. There is nothing wrong with having sex because it feels good.

You are right that to forget the other person is a person is a bad thing, but it is just as bad to forget that you are a person. It’s a two way street, and you must recognize that. You are getting something from it just like the other person. If you aren’t getting anything from, then there is something wrong.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

I see, understand, and acknowledge it all too well.

But I am not a believer.
Why should I simply take what they say regarding sex and lust on faith?

How does our definition of lust or sex affect you anyway? You are an atheist, you dont HAVE to take anyone’s word for anything. Why should this even be an issue for you? Unless there is some kind of deeper compulsion within you that hungers for the truth

 

[CrimsonThorn]

The coke and beer is an analogy to show point. Pleasure sought for itself isn’t a bad thing. The only reason why I would ever drink a coke is because it tastes good. There is nothing wrong with having sex because it feels good.

You are right that to forget the other person is a person is a bad thing, but it is just as bad to forget that you are a person. It’s a two way street, and you must recognize that. You are getting something from it just like the other person. If you aren’t getting anything from, then there is something wrong.

Again, seeking pleasure for itself from a can of Coke is fine because you are not using another PERSON.

seeking pleasure sought for itself from another person is objectifying, dehumanizing, and using that person without any consideration for them as a person who possesses emotions, a soul, a mind etc.

 

[clem456]

The coke and beer is an analogy to show point. Pleasure sought for itself isn’t a bad thing. The only reason why I would ever drink a coke is because it tastes good. There is nothing wrong with having sex because it feels good.

You are right that to forget the other person is a person is a bad thing, but it is just as bad to forget that you are a person. It’s a two way street, and you must recognize that. You are getting something from it just like the other person. If you aren’t getting anything from, then there is something wrong.

Pleasure sought for itself, or rather more accurately, an activity done solely to acquire pleasure for one’s self, can be a bad thing. There’s the element of selfishness, and the blindness to a higher good than mere pleasure. Now, we are making silly comparisons here. No one would begrudge someone a coke for the great belch and pleasing tingle it put’s up your nose.

A coke is an inanimate object, a human being is a human being, not because I say so, but because God created them. To use another human being solely for one’s own pleasure is evil, it is objectification, or appropriating for one’s own pleasure a person who belongs first to God, and has a dignity that must be respected. This applies to not only the spouse in front of us, but also to images we appropriate through pornography or ogling on the street.

The hard part here is, this principle does not preclude pleasure from the act of sex, rather enhances it. This is where people get confused and the reason we are having a dispute about this issue. It can be a hard concept to grasp, because pleasure is a powerful motivator. A chaste life (not the same as celibate) is not a life of drudgery,it is a life of properly ordered peace, joy, pleasure, and can be every bit as spontaneous once the virtue of purity is mastered. (The virtue of purity is not the same as celibacy either.)
People get these concepts confused.

 

[jimmy]

Again, seeking pleasure for itself from a can of Coke is fine because you are not using another PERSON.

seeking pleasure sought for itself from another person is objectifying, dehumanizing, and using that person without any consideration for them as a person who possesses emotions, a soul, a mind etc.

So pleasure is bad when it involves another person. I can only play a game of cards with someone to please them. I can’t play cards because I enjoy it. I can’t play any game because I enjoy it. In other words, I should be a people please.

 

[clem456]

So pleasure is bad when it involves another person. I can only play a game of cards with someone to please them. I can’t play cards because I enjoy it. I can’t play any game because I enjoy it. In other words, I should be a people please.

Come on Jimmy. You know the difference. It has been explained here ad nauseum.

 

[The_Bucket]

Why the trolling jimmy? Why the incessant trolling?

We’ve repeatedly said that using other people for your own pleasure and solely for your own pleasure is what’s sinful. Just like overeating or overindulging in drink. I like myself a good bourbon. I drink it on occasion. I personally like the slap in the face it gives me. So sometimes I have a drink or two. Is this wrong? Heck no. Would it be wrong if I grabbed a bottle in order to get blasted and had little regard for whether it was becoming habitual? You bet.

Same goes for the Coke. If you’re drinking a Coke a day but otherwise keeping yourself in shape, more power to you. If you’re guzzling sugary drinks constantly, getting obese and harming your body, well that’s wrong. You’re disrespecting the temple God gave you.

I actually think the cards analogy is fine to use. So the situation is that everyone wants to play cards, right? Or some do and some don’t but those that don’t are fine with it because they like you and want you to be happy. Everything’s good so far. How about when you force or cajole or otherwise manipulate people into playing cards solely because you want to? That’s a problem.

In sexual relations then, there’s no sin if both spouses want to express their love or even if both spouses just have that “on fire” feeling. They’re giving themselves freely to one another. And even in the case where one is desirous of intimacy and the other is not, but relents and relents cheerfully in order to please his or her spouse, there is likewise no sin for any party involved. But what about when you manipulate your spouse? When you use sex as a weapon or rewards system? What about when you make no effort to have physical intimacy for no good reason? Or what about when you don’t care that your spouse is not feeling well and you want what you want? That’s clearly wrong.

 

[jimmy]

Come on Jimmy. You know the difference. It has been explained here ad nauseum.

And you know my point. A person who has sex shouldn’t be doing it to please another person. Yes the other person should benefit but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t seek my own pleasure as well. What your idea reminds me of is some 13 year old girl doing it because she might make a boy like her.

 

[The_Bucket]

And you know my point. A person who has sex shouldn’t be doing it to please another person. Yes the other person should benefit but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t seek my own pleasure as well. What your idea reminds me of is some 13 year old girl doing it because she might make a boy like her.

Are you seeking the pleasure for merely seeking pleasure? That is a problem. Maybe we’re talking cross-purposes here. Spouses who engage in marital relations should always try to approach selfless love. The very sexual act in and of itself proves the selflessness when completed in a fashion according to Church doctrine. That’s mutual self-giving right there, even if the mindset is not always attuned.

If you’re saying that you feel desirous of intimacy and you want that desire fulfilled, well that’s fine my friend. If you’re talking about merely physical pleasure, well I think there’s a problem and you certainly can fall into the trap of using other people for your own purposes.

 

[clem456]

And you know my point. A person who has sex shouldn’t be doing it to please another person. Yes the other person should benefit but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t seek my own pleasure as well. What your idea reminds me of is some 13 year old girl doing it because she might make a boy like her.

I think you owe me the courtesy of fleshing out your logic on this point.
thank you

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No, you don’t. You do not need to be a believer to understand simple statements on what someone else believes. People are continually correcting you on what the Church’s teachings are on sexuality. Yet you continually misrepresent what people believe. You are demonstrating that you either:

a) still do not understand it

or

b) obstinately refuse to discuss in good faith (had to throw a pun in there) because you have an agenda to defend.
Seems to me a combination of both

I understand it.
As for having an agenda…

Don’t you have an agenda just by virtue of being Catholic?

 

[jimmy]

Why the trolling jimmy? Why the incessant trolling?

We’ve repeatedly said that using other people for your own pleasure and solely for your own pleasure is what’s sinful. Just like overeating or overindulging in drink. I like myself a good bourbon. I drink it on occasion. I personally like the slap in the face it gives me. So sometimes I have a drink or two. Is this wrong? Heck no. Would it be wrong if I grabbed a bottle in order to get blasted and had little regard for whether it was becoming habitual? You bet.

Same goes for the Coke. If you’re drinking a Coke a day but otherwise keeping yourself in shape, more power to you. If you’re guzzling sugary drinks constantly, getting obese and harming your body, well that’s wrong. You’re disrespecting the temple God gave you.

I actually think the cards analogy is fine to use. So the situation is that everyone wants to play cards, right? Or some do and some don’t but those that don’t are fine with it because they like you and want you to be happy. Everything’s good so far. How about when you force or cajole or otherwise manipulate people into playing cards solely because you want to? That’s a problem.

In sexual relations then, there’s no sin if both spouses want to express their love or even if both spouses just have that “on fire” feeling. They’re giving themselves freely to one another. And even in the case where one is desirous of intimacy and the other is not, but relents and relents cheerfully in order to please his or her spouse, there is likewise no sin for any party involved. But what about when you manipulate your spouse? When you use sex as a weapon or rewards system? What about when you make no effort to have physical intimacy for no good reason? Or what about when you don’t care that your spouse is not feeling well and you want what you want? That’s clearly wrong.

It’s funny that people call someone a troll for disagreeing. That said, I agree with this post.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is good common sense. The eating analogy works very well. (This may be repetitive of your post bucket, but I think the repetition is necessary)
Why do I eat? It is pleasurable for sure. If I eat simply for the pleasure alone, I will overeat and abuse the good, because the pleasure obtained from eating does not stop at the rightful boundary of eating properly. It will drive me through that boundary seeking pleasure. That has consequences. Overweight, abuse of my body, could be a burden on others…etc

I eat because I have an instinct to eat. That instinct is ordered to the good, to be used for it’s purpose, and not simply for pleasure. The higher good is… I am able to sustain my body for God’s work that needs to be done. I don’t simply eat for my own pleasure. There is pleasure in eating, but the pleasure serves the higher good and is not -the- end in itself. It is tough to see the line sometimes, but each one of us will know when right-oriented pleasure turns into disordered lust for food.

**If you think people don’t have disorderd lust for food, just walk out onto the sidewalk and prove yourself wrong. So in a similar way, we can misuse the pleasure and desire for sex, even in the context of marriage. This really is not rocket science, it’s common sense. **(God-given of course)

Yes, but as a poster admitted earlier in this thread, virtually all (sexual) desire is disordered from the Catholic perspective.

 

[clem456]

I understand it.
As for having an agenda…

Don’t you have an agenda just by virtue of being Catholic?

Yes, but I am not holding blindly to it, to the disrepect of your logic and philosophy. You repeatedly misprepresent what the Church teaches. Why can’t you accept and articulate the concepts, even if you disagree with them? It’s just courtesy.

 

[clem456]

Yes, but as a poster admitted earlier in this thread, virtually all (sexual) desire is disordered from the Catholic perspective.

And here we have a perfect example. This is not the Catholic perspective. Why do you insist on misrepresenting?
It is pointless to discuss with you so I will refrain.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Is it wrong to drink a coke because it tastes good? Is it wrong to eat a steak because it tastes good? Is it wrong to watch tv because you enjoy it? Is it wrong drink a beer because a couple beers makes you feel good?

This idea of selfless sex, in which we don’t seek our own pleasure, but only to please the other person is nonsensical. There is nothing wrong with seeking something simply fpr the pleasure ot offers, unless you think pleasure is evil. Is there a problem with pleasure? Are we supposed to hate ourselves and our lives? Should it be pure torture, or atleastt a dull and boring drag?

True, that’s actually the point I was trying to get across.