Lust and attraction and adultry

[LongJohnSilver]

What does that have to do with anything?

The fact of the matter is, initial sexual attraction (at least among guys) is based on what the other person looks like.

Sure, but you’re still looking at a person. That is, you don’t see breasts and bottom walking by, you see a person with breasts and bottom walking by. You are interested in her as a whole, including her body (but also her personality).

Whereas in lust, you’re not interested in her personality, just her body.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sure, but you’re still looking at a person. That is, you don’t see breasts and bottom walking by, you see a person with breasts and bottom walking by. You are interested in her as a whole, including her body (but also her personality).

Whereas in lust, you’re not interested in her personality, just her body.

No, that’s wrong.

I am perfectly capable of Lusting after someone I see as a person, and her personality characteristics might very well make her more attractive to me. There are women I was initially very attracted to (to the point where you could probably say I lusted after them) that I stopped finding very attractive after I got to know them (because they were terrible and/or annoying people).

Sexual attraction is a very base instinctive response, its influenced by other things (like how much your personality clashes with someone) but at its core its animalistic and selfish (e.g. Lustful).

 

[Arizona_Mike]

AngryAtheist8: When I see a busty woman my eyes are automatically draw to her bosom.
This is a perfectly natural instinctive reaction on my part in response to sexual attraction.

Gosh, you must be in great demand as a dinner guest!

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I have a question about the words that Jesus said when He said if you look at a woman with lust in your heart, you have committed adultry with her. Now, I understand that adultry is a big sin in religion, but equally, in the secular world, it’s pretty bad for the health of the relationship, kids, and so on … so it has big consequences regardless if youre religious or not. So my issue is not with the physical ACT of adultry.

It’s more trying to understand how you CANT look at someone with lust, when you first meet, and are interested in that person. My husband is an awesome guy, a great father, a wonderful provider, a generous kind and loving husband, a considerate son, and a great lover, and he’s also my best friend… but, truth be out, I never knew any of that when I first set eyes on him - I just lusted after him

So how does that work? According to the Bible, Ive already committed adultry with him, before I even said hi to him

But without that lust, that curiosity, that interest to find out more, I would never have known any of the above … I certainly couldnt tell just by looking at him … I could only tell what the physical reaction was

And boy am I glad for it. But it leaves me wondering how do you reconcile that with the Bible.

Sarah x

I suspect a lot of people think Catholics are obsessed with issues of sexual desire and lust as a sin. Truth to tell, some of us are. (Let’s be honest, if you’re going to talk about sin, sex is a lot more interesting to talk about than, say, simony). The Church Lady stereotypes aside, however, the general belief is that most sexual sins (at least, those not involving force, children, animals, sacrilege) are no better and no worse than the other sins against persons – anger, cruelty, inflicting distress on another, pride, and so forth are probably worse, depending on the circumstances and context, than masturbation or fornication, and as we all fall into sin, again and again, so I don’t think most Catholics obsess over “lust” any more than other sins (or shouldn’t). Let me get back to what “lust” may mean in a moment.

Catholics like sex, and we think it’s a Good Thing. We’re not a bunch of freaking gnostic Manicheans, after all, who think matter and bodies and sweat and conception and babies are all Evil, and that only things of the spirit are Good. Sex was invented by our God, and He didn’t create bad things. It’s an essential part of the world of matter, part of the stuff of this world, and we think our world and our “stuff” is good. Our sacraments and sacramentals revolve around material things, like holy water and chrism and incense and salt and bread and wine. One of our sacraments, Marriage, even includes sex as part of the ritual – the sacrament isn’t concluded (or considered valid) until the couple make love.

God meant for many of us to be married, and in selecting a marriage partner, of course sexual attraction will be a big part of that choice. For that to work, for someone who is looking for a mate, a person will have to look at others in a sexual way. That doesn’t mean we look at them solely as a sex object, but as a whole person. Sarah, I would reckon you did the same – your future husband wasn’t just blonde curls and a six-pack waist (or whatever), you liked the way he looked and moved, all expressions of ourselves, and later, the way he looked at you when you talked and the ways he showed that he cared about you, too. Sex is good, and physical (sexual) attraction is a big part of that. (In fairness to the woman (or man) you love, one should cut out checking others out once one commits.)

We are both body and soul – not a ghost in the machine, but a complete being who displays dual aspects of both matter and consciousness. That is so important, that we Catholics think that our spirits will be reunited with our physical (new and improved!) bodies at the General Resurrection (it’s part of the Apostolic Creed, BTW – it’s not up for discussion), as it’s important for us to have bodies to be fully whole. That means that it’s okay – good, in fact – to admire our beloved’s body, as that is part of who they are, not just a biological horse that their spirit rides like a jockey. Thankfully, because we see the person as a whole package, we continue to value and love our mate’s body as they grow older – they’re not “just” an object of lust, or no marriage would survive for long. We still love and value our mate’s bodies as we show the effects of the years because they’re “our” bodies now, too.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

That also means that what we do with our bodies is also important – what happens to our physical body affects our soul (not only through generally good things like sex, but also through the effects on our body of bad things like injury and illness, which affect the soul.) We even pray with our bodies, which is why we stand and sit and kneel and clasp our hands and hold them open to the heavens when we celebrate the Mass. In turn, the choices and thoughts of our soul also affect our body, as anyone who has ever taken a polygraph test knows, and as any 16 year old boy who has stared at a pretty girl in History class for too long and who now realizes the bell is about to ring and he has to stand up, also knows.

So, we think that not only we what we do with our bodies, but what we think about doing with our bodies, makes a difference.

So, what can we make of all this “lust” and “adultery in the heart” talk, which made the Playboy Interview with the winner of the 1976 presidential election so very bizarre? Are we sinning every time we admire an attractive person? Was I sinning when I met my future wife and wasn’t able to think about anyone or anything else for years? (We had a long courtship, and I never thought she’d finally say yes) How about Sarah and her beau? Was what she calls the “lust” she cheerfully acknowledges feeling for her future husband a sin?

Like most things people quote from the Bible, we should probably look at the verse in the full context of Jesus’ teachings. His statement that whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart is contained in the Sermon on the Mount, and is not something He just suddenly blurted out while walking around the streets with his apostles. In Matthew 5 – 7, after setting out the Beatitudes, Jesus taught the Commandments, and taught that not the letter, but the spirit of the Law must be followed. He taught that Murder is wrong under the Law, but so is showing wrath or anger or calling someone a moron (“raqa” in Aramaic); to go beyond “an eye for an eye” to showing forbearance in the face of harassment, to show charity to the poor, to love not only our neighbor, but our enemy. It is in the middle of these “hard teachings” about our obligations to others that Jesus tells us about lust and adultery.

Why is it there, in those teachings? He was not really teaching about “personal” morality (whatever that is) as much as our relations with God and others. So why the teachings about sex?

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Jesus lived in a world where rights accrued to the powerful, and where women especially were subjugated to the desires of powerful men. A Roman head of a household could lawfully have forced sex with any slave, male or female, and could kill the slave if he or she resisted, or for any reason whatever. If a woman became pregnant, the paterfamilias could order her to abort the child, or kill the infant after birth, and she was powerless to intervene. Among the Jews, although they had a far superior moral code to the Romans (the best moral code of any people of the earth, at that time), the law was interpreted so a Jewish male could and often did divorce his wife for the simplest reason, such as bad cooking, whereas a wife could not obtain a divorce against her husband. A wife could be divorced because the man desired – lusted after – a younger wife and could leave her adrift without property and dependent on the charity of her own family.

Being human, Jewish men practiced adultery and sexual assault and child abuse, as is, sadly, found in all cultures. The sanctions for adultery or any sex outside of wedlock were harsher for women. The notions of sexual equality that began in the Christian community from Christ’s teachings and the teachings of his followers – uniquely – recognized the vast gulf of rights between men and women, and how the effects of sexual desire, divorced from concern for the humanity of those affected, affected women and children. It is this “lust” that Jesus seems (to me) to be especially condemning.

I don’t think what either of us felt, or feels, for our spouses stands condemned by Christ in the way this passage seems to express.

It is the compassionate insight of Jesus to the effects of sin on the powerless – in this case, the perversion of the goodness of sex into the cruelty of lust – that was a new message to the world. We all recognize the evil of the perversion of sex into crimes such as sexual assault and child molestation. (Well, most of us do.) But generally, society and popular culture encourage other forms of sexual activity that are condemned by the Christian tradition, such as out-of-wedlock sex, adultery and pornography as simply other legitimate forms of sexual expression, or as simply private matters that are only of concern to those involved, especially if the man is a political leader or popular actor.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I think that the net result of such actions, which lie outside Christian teachings on morality, continue to unfairly affect the powerless, who are often innocent third parties.

If a man has children outside of wedlock, he may think of himself as a “good father” who “loves his kids.” His children will still learn the message that marriage is unnecessary, and that their father did not value their mother as much as other children’s fathers, who valued the mothers they actually married.

If a man lives with a woman while he tries to decide if this whole marriage thing is a good idea, or if he is mature enough yet to actually commit to his roommate/girlfriend, the roommate/girlfriend will waste years while they split the rent, he tells her she is pushing too hard for commitment, and he waits to see if something better will come along, and ultimately she is left a few years older, without children, a screwed-up body chemistry from flooding her body with artificial hormones or the guilt of an abortion, and a little more embittered and less trusting for her next relationship.

If a man divorces his wife because his 23 year old personal trainer seems like a better fit for the successful person he has become now that he is a full partmer, and feels a divorce would be “better for the kids,” I can guarantee you the kid’s financial security will not be better. I can guarantee you that the kid’s sense of personal security will not be better. I can guarantee you the relationship between the children and the parents will not be as close as it could be. And I can guarantee you that it will be less likely for the children to find appropriate partners for marriage and commit to them with all their hearts when they grow up.

If a young man grows up using porn, he will have some very unrealistic ideas about how real adult women want to have sex, where they want to have sex, and when they want to have sex, will have very unrealistic ideas about how what real women’s bodies are like when they take off their clothes, and will likely to have a lot of performance problems from years of practicing for speedy solo performance.

If a young man tomcats around his neighborhood, council, small town, or village and has multiple sexual partners, and the other men are encouraged to act the same way by the fanciful view of proper masculine behavior spread by popular culture, and women are encouraged to validate themselves by supporting this kind of self-destructive behavior, you’re going to have…well, pretty much the kind of environment most young people in economically depressed areas around the “modern” world have. You’re also going to have a whole bunch of children (and mothers) who have only the vaguest ideas of who their fathers are, and who will grow up to perpetuate the same system of social pathology. You’re also going to have (surprise) multigenerational incest, as people will unknowingly be having children with their siblings, as no one knows for sure who their fathers are. Did you ever wonder why small tribes are so concerned about adultery? And genealogy?

Just some thoughts, others may feel differently.

 

[domandcarols]

I actually did. I dont think I could have made my intentions any more clear if I’d hung a sign around my neck screaming take me to your cave you beast

That’s so disgusting and immature… Hahahaha

 

[underacloud]

In other words Lust is pure sexual attraction.

No, it’s the indulgence in or dwelling on sexual attraction removed from the personhood of the subject of the attraction.

The initial sexual attraction is not lust. The initial sexual attraction may be pure - not at all related to their personhood - but that is only natural and not sinful. Lust is to dwell on this attraction in an objectifying manner.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I suspect a lot of people think Catholics are obsessed with issues of sexual desire and lust as a sin. Truth to tell, some of us are. (Let’s be honest, if you’re going to talk about sin, sex is a lot more interesting to talk about than, say, simony). The Church Lady stereotypes aside, however, the general belief is that most sexual sins (at least, those not involving force, children, animals, sacrilege) are no better and no worse than the other sins against persons – anger, cruelty, inflicting distress on another, pride, and so forth are probably worse, depending on the circumstances and context, than masturbation or fornication, and as we all fall into sin, again and again, so I don’t think most Catholics obsess over “lust” any more than other sins (or shouldn’t). Let me get back to what “lust” may mean in a moment.

Catholics like sex, and we think it’s a Good Thing.** We’re not a bunch of freaking gnostic Manicheans, after all, who think matter and bodies and sweat and conception and babies are all Evil, and that only things of the spirit are Good.** Sex was invented by our God, and He didn’t create bad things. It’s an essential part of the world of matter, part of the stuff of this world, and we think our world and our “stuff” is good. Our sacraments and sacramentals revolve around material things, like holy water and chrism and incense and salt and bread and wine. One of our sacraments, Marriage, even includes sex as part of the ritual – the sacrament isn’t concluded (or considered valid) until the couple make love.

God meant for many of us to be married, and in selecting a marriage partner, of course sexual attraction will be a big part of that choice. For that to work, for someone who is looking for a mate, a person will have to look at others in a sexual way. That doesn’t mean we look at them solely as a sex object, but as a whole person. Sarah, I would reckon you did the same – your future husband wasn’t just blonde curls and a six-pack waist (or whatever), you liked the way he looked and moved, all expressions of ourselves, and later, the way he looked at you when you talked and the ways he showed that he cared about you, too. Sex is good, and physical (sexual) attraction is a big part of that. (In fairness to the woman (or man) you love, one should cut out checking others out once one commits.)

We are both body and soul – not a ghost in the machine, but a complete being who displays dual aspects of both matter and consciousness. That is so important, that we Catholics think that our spirits will be reunited with our physical (new and improved!) bodies at the General Resurrection (it’s part of the Apostolic Creed, BTW – it’s not up for discussion), as it’s important for us to have bodies to be fully whole. That means that it’s okay – good, in fact – to admire our beloved’s body, as that is part of who they are, not just a biological horse that their spirit rides like a jockey. Thankfully, because we see the person as a whole package, we continue to value and love our mate’s body as they grow older – they’re not “just” an object of lust, or no marriage would survive for long. We still love and value our mate’s bodies as we show the effects of the years because they’re “our” bodies now, too.

Perhaps.
But Catholics (and Christians in general) often give the impression that they think everything not of the spirit is sinful and anything sexual is particularly perverse.

And the Church has exalted celibacy in a way that strikes many outsiders (such as myself) as dimissive to or even damning of all active sexuality.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That also means that what we do with our bodies is also important – what happens to our physical body affects our soul (not only through generally good things like sex, but also through the effects on our body of bad things like injury and illness, which affect the soul.) We even pray with our bodies, which is why we stand and sit and kneel and clasp our hands and hold them open to the heavens when we celebrate the Mass. In turn, the choices and thoughts of our soul also affect our body, as anyone who has ever taken a polygraph test knows, and as any 16 year old boy who has stared at a pretty girl in History class for too long and who now realizes the bell is about to ring and he has to stand up, also knows.

So, we think that not only we what we do with our bodies, but what we think about doing with our bodies, makes a difference.

So, what can we make of all this “lust” and “adultery in the heart” talk, which made the Playboy Interview with the winner of the 1976 presidential election so very bizarre? Are we sinning every time we admire an attractive person? Was I sinning when I met my future wife and wasn’t able to think about anyone or anything else for years? (We had a long courtship, and I never thought she’d finally say yes) How about Sarah and her beau? Was what she calls the “lust” she cheerfully acknowledges feeling for her future husband a sin?

Like most things people quote from the Bible, we should probably look at the verse in the full context of Jesus’ teachings. His statement that whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart is contained in the Sermon on the Mount, and is not something He just suddenly blurted out while walking around the streets with his apostles. In Matthew 5 – 7, after setting out the Beatitudes, Jesus taught the Commandments, and taught that not the letter, but the spirit of the Law must be followed. He taught that Murder is wrong under the Law, but so is showing wrath or anger or calling someone a moron (“raqa” in Aramaic); to go beyond “an eye for an eye” to showing forbearance in the face of harassment, to show charity to the poor, to love not only our neighbor, but our enemy. It is in the middle of these “hard teachings” about our obligations to others that Jesus tells us about lust and adultery.

Why is it there, in those teachings? He was not really teaching about “personal” morality (whatever that is) as much as our relations with God and others. So why the teachings about sex?

Because our sex drive is such a central part of what motivates us, that if you can control people’s sex drives you can control pretty much everything about them.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Jesus lived in a world where rights accrued to the powerful, and where women especially were subjugated to the desires of powerful men. A Roman head of a household could lawfully have forced sex with any slave, male or female, and could kill the slave if he or she resisted, or for any reason whatever. If a woman became pregnant, the paterfamilias could order her to abort the child, or kill the infant after birth, and she was powerless to intervene**. Among the Jews, although they had a far superior moral code to the Romans (the best moral code of any people of the earth, at that time), **the law was interpreted so a Jewish male could and often did divorce his wife for the simplest reason, such as bad cooking, whereas a wife could not obtain a divorce against her husband. A wife could be divorced because the man desired – lusted after – a younger wife and could leave her adrift without property and dependent on the charity of her own family.

Being human, Jewish men practiced adultery and sexual assault and child abuse, as is, sadly, found in all cultures. The sanctions for adultery or any sex outside of wedlock were harsher for women. The notions of sexual equality that began in the Christian community from Christ’s teachings and the teachings of his followers – uniquely – recognized the vast gulf of rights between men and women, and how the effects of sexual desire, divorced from concern for the humanity of those affected, affected women and children. It is this “lust” that Jesus seems (to me) to be especially condemning.

I don’t think what either of us felt, or feels, for our spouses stands condemned by Christ in the way this passage seems to express.

It is the compassionate insight of Jesus to the effects of sin on the powerless – in this case, the perversion of the goodness of sex into the cruelty of lust – that was a new message to the world. We all recognize the evil of the perversion of sex into crimes such as sexual assault and child molestation. (Well, most of us do.) But generally, society and popular culture encourage other forms of sexual activity that are condemned by the Christian tradition, such as out-of-wedlock sex, adultery and pornography as simply other legitimate forms of sexual expression, or as simply private matters that are only of concern to those involved, especially if the man is a political leader or popular actor.

What was so superior about their moral code?

Based on what we know about Jewish law from the Old Testament, the Jews clearly had no problem with slavery, genocide, the raping of foreign women, etc.
And they they seemed at least as eager to kill and neglect their own women as the Romans were.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No, it’s the indulgence in or dwelling on sexual attraction removed from the personhood of the subject of the attraction.

The initial sexual attraction is not lust. The initial sexual attraction may be pure - not at all related to their personhood - but that is only natural and not sinful. Lust is to dwell on this attraction in an objectifying manner.

If the initial desire is not sinful, and indulging it within the marital bed (under very narrow circumstances) is also okay, then why would this natural impulse suddenly become bad if expressed in any other way?

You do realize sex is impossible without sexual desire don’t you?
And that virtually all sexual desire would be defined as Lust under the Catholic definition?

 

[underacloud]

If the initial desire is not sinful, and indulging it within the marital bed (under very narrow circumstances) is also okay, then why would this natural impulse suddenly become bad if expressed in any other way?

Because God’s design for sex is that it occur within marriage.

You do realize sex is impossible without sexual desire don’t you?

I do realise that. I am happily married and thankful to God for the sex that my wife and I share, and the sexual desire that I feel for her.

And that virtually all sexual desire would be defined as Lust under the Catholic definition?

Not true. My sexual desire for my wife is perfectly fine. I treat her with love and respect at all times (or at least I should), never seeing her as merely an object for my enjoyment.

 

[Matt_Tiza]

Wow, what an active thread this is!

In my experience most religions regard lust and promiscuous behavior as wrong or sinful for very practical reasons. We aren’t animals. Our modern civilization depends on our ability to control all of our emotions. Lust is indeed a gateway to serious sin, and it can take away a lot of your time and hurt your family relationships if you don’t try to control it.

Regarding the question about celibacy, it is not just for priests. Consider a relatively unattractive and opinionated guy like me. I couldn’t attract the kind of girls that I am interested in even if I wanted to so I have to remain celibate whether I like it or not. “Abstinence only” is a way of life for many people whether they believe in it or not, and it is clearly not impossible to achieve.

Catholics call on their priests to commit their entire lives - body, mind, and soul to the Church. You can’t do that with the distraction of lust or even the nobel but huge responsibility of marriage and children. Especially today we have a shortage of priests who are streched across multiple parishes. Celibacy and focus are more important now than ever as the growing Church’s needs are in such high demand.

On a different note to answer the second question about my last post, the Assumption of Mary is “revealed” in the Book of Revelations. Protestants debate the woman in Revelations as being Mary, but when you look into the theology of the Church and the concept of the New Eve (Christ is the New Adam) it becomes clear that this is the only way to reconcile Mary’s role in Sacred Scripture.

 

[FNDRB58]

Without Lust the human race would have died out long ago.

You misunderstand what the term “lust” means. Do not equate sexual attraction and desire with lust. Lust may come FROM sexual desire and attraction but that is sinful. You can have a strong desire to have sex with someone without it being lust. Lust infers that you do not love the person or that you only desire their body without consideration of their soul. Once you accept this meaning then you can understand what everyone else is saying here.

You can be angry but if you act inappropriately on that anger then you fall into sin. Same thing with sexual desire. It is normal to have it but if you act inappropriately on it, i.e. lusting, then you fall into sin.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You misunderstand what the term “lust” means. Do not equate sexual attraction and desire with lust. Lust may come FROM sexual desire and attraction but that is sinful. You can have a strong desire to have sex with someone without it being lust. Lust infers that you do not love the person or that you only desire their body without consideration of their soul. Once you accept this meaning then you can understand what everyone else is saying here.

You can be angry but if you act inappropriately on that anger then you fall into sin. Same thing with sexual desire. It is normal to have it but if you act inappropriately on it, i.e. lusting, then you fall into sin.

There is no realistic way to *act appropriately *by the standards of the Catholic Church when it comes to sexual desire.

According to that standard, right action, thought, and feelings are required, otherwise you are sinning.

 

[underacloud]

There is no realistic way to *act appropriately *by the standards of the Catholic Church when it comes to sexual desire.

Of course there is. Sexual desire is not inherently wrong. The Church teaches that the appropriate avenue for sex is within the vocation of marriage, and many Catholics and people of myriad other faiths live this vocation and enjoy the role that sex plays in it. That is the realistic way to act appropriately.

You seem to have a twisted view of what the Chruch actually teaches and expects of people. Many of us have tried to help you understand Church teaching better in this thread. I can’t help but wonder whether you simply have an axe to grind.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Of course there is. Sexual desire is not inherently wrong. The Church teaches that the appropriate avenue for sex is within the vocation of marriage, and many Catholics and people of myriad other faiths live this vocation and enjoy the role that sex plays in it. That is the realistic way to act appropriately.

You seem to have a twisted view of what the Chruch actually teaches and expects of people. Many of us have tried to help you understand Church teaching better in this thread. I can’t help but wonder whether you simply have an axe to grind.

I have an outsider’s view of Catholic teachings.

I think that gives me a more realistic view of it, because I have no reason to believe its all good regardless of the evidence or my own personal experience.

 

[underacloud]

I have an outsider’s view of Catholic teachings.

I think that gives me a more realistic view of it, because I have no reason to believe its all good regardless of the evidence or my own personal experience.

It may be an outsiders view, but it doesn’t seem to be an educated one. You have in this threat constantly mis-stated the Church’s position on lust. You merely state what you think the Church teaches and have not amended your understanding based on the responses provided.

Having a realistic view is only possible if you actually read up on what the Church teaches, rather than relying on preconceptions.

Anyway, you said that “there is no realistic way to act appropriately by the standards of the Catholic Church when it comes to sexual desire” and I think I’ve sufficiently answered that challenge. So, all the best.