Lust vs Admiration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scameter18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

scameter18

Guest
For some time now, I have been trying to discern the difference between lust and admiring a woman’s physical beauty. I have always been of the opinion that looking at a woman’s body, particularly when she is fully clothed and not doing anything sexual, and saying that she is beautiful is not lust, precisely because it is not by nature possessive or sexual, either in mind or action. Lust is not only sexual but also greedy, the desire to own a woman, which is truly not even appropriate in marriage precisely because lust is incompatible with love. I think this also applies to various artistic portrayals of women, even in nudity, where the subject matter and intention is simply the exemplification of her physical beauty, without any sexual or possessive connotation. If I see a woman and think she is beautiful, without overly dwelling on it, desiring to possess her, or imaging her sexually, is that lust? And if I see a woman who I think is beautiful, perhaps in a movie or music video, and I watch that video again partially to admire her beauty, again without any further connotations, is that lust? Or if I find another aspect of her to be beautiful, such as her singing voice, partially because of its femininity, is it lustful for me to listen to it again partially because of its feminine beauty?

I hope this didn’t come off in a defensive way, I am truly looking for answers to these questions as I don’t want to be doing something wrong without forming my conscience as to its immorality and thus being able to avoid it and/or seek forgiveness for participating in it. Thank you all for your help and God bless. 🙂
 
I know the lines can be hard to draw sometimes. I think the principle to keep in mind is that you should always regard the other as a person, not an object to be admired or enjoyed.

Watching a music video is somewhat different because it is not the actual person you are viewing and listening to, only a representation. Especially if you are deriving pleasure from the person’s voice, that is what trained singers are for. At least that is my opinion.
 
I believe there is nothing wrong with admiring God’s creation over and over again. But it becomes a problem when one starts developing other desires. That is, when one starts thinking about …
 
Years ago I heard a Zen story that I think makes a good example of your question and may offer some perspective.

According to Zen philosophy, monks are celibate and physical contact with women is strictly avoided.

One day, two monks were walking along when they came to a woman in distress at the side of a river. The woman needed to cross the river, but the river was deep and she did not know how to swim.

The first monk picked the woman up, carried her across the river, and set her down safely on the opposite shore.

The two monks continued on their journey in silence. Some time later, the second monk spoke, saying “You know that contact with women is forbidden yet you helped that woman across the river.”

To which the first monk replied, “Are you still carrying her? I put her down hours ago.”

In my humble opinion, the Church obsesses more about sex (in the name of righteousness) than the average man or woman ever gives time or purpose to. Which is the bigger concern? P.S… I am a practicing Catholic, not a Buddhist.
 
Lust is one of the Seven Deadly Sins.Each of them is a trait that is necessary but is out of balance.

You’re supposed to find women attractive. You’re programmed that way. It is completely involuntary to do a doubletake when an especially attractive woman passes by. Where it crosses the line is when it goes beyond admiring her natural beauty into thinking about all the things you’d like to do to her. Or cancelling your original plan to turn around and follow her.

If you happen to be at a museum and there are nude paintings or sculptures, it’s normal to stop and look. The human form is the pinnacle of beauty and design. Waiting to visit that museum until you see they will be having an exhibition of nude photography probably becomes Lust.

Rule of thumb: If you question whether something is wrong, it probably is.
 
karanth said:
Years ago I heard a Zen story that I think makes a good example of your question and may offer some perspective.

According to Zen philosophy, monks are celibate and physical contact with women is strictly avoided.

One day, two monks were walking along when they came to a woman in distress at the side of a river. The woman needed to cross the river, but the river was deep and she did not know how to swim.

The first monk picked the woman up, carried her across the river, and set her down safely on the opposite shore.

The two monks continued on their journey in silence. Some time later, the second monk spoke, saying “You know that contact with women is forbidden yet you helped that woman across the river.”

To which the first monk replied, “Are you still carrying her? I put her down hours ago.”

In my humble opinion, the Church obsesses more about sex (in the name of righteousness) than the average man or woman ever gives time or purpose to. Which is the bigger concern? P.S… I am a practicing Catholic, not a Buddhist.
Click to expand...
this is interesting.
 
+JMJ+
karanth said:
Years ago I heard a Zen story that I think makes a good example of your question and may offer some perspective.

According to Zen philosophy, monks are celibate and physical contact with women is strictly avoided.

One day, two monks were walking along when they came to a woman in distress at the side of a river. The woman needed to cross the river, but the river was deep and she did not know how to swim.

The first monk picked the woman up, carried her across the river, and set her down safely on the opposite shore.

The two monks continued on their journey in silence. Some time later, the second monk spoke, saying “You know that contact with women is forbidden yet you helped that woman across the river.”

To which the first monk replied, “Are you still carrying her? I put her down hours ago.”
Click to expand...
I have always thought that the monks were Catholic in the story. Huh, I learn something new everyday 👍
karanth said:
In my humble opinion, the Church obsesses more about sex (in the name of righteousness) than the average man or woman ever gives time or purpose to. Which is the bigger concern? P.S… I am a practicing Catholic, not a Buddhist.
Click to expand...
Actually the Catholic Church “obsesses” with sex so that we don’t have to:

…Now in this kingdom of human beings (I would tell them, drawing on the experience gained from all my priestly work) for normal people, sex comes in fourth or fifth place. First come spiritual ideals, with each person choosing his own. Next, a whole series of matters that concern ordinary men and women: their father and mother, home, children and so on. After that, one’s job or profession. Only then, in fourth or fifth place, does the sexual impulse come in.

For this reason, whenever I have met people who make sex the central topic of their conversation and interests, I have felt they were abnormal, wretched people, even sick perhaps. And I would add (and the young people to whom I was speaking would burst out laughing at this point) that these poor things made me feel as much pity as would the sight of a deformed child with a big, enormous head, one yard round. They are unhappy individuals. For our part, besides praying for them, we should feel a brotherly compassion for them because we want them to be cured of their pitiful illness. But what is quite clear is that they are in no way more manly or womanly than people who don’t go around obsessed with sex.

St. Jose Maria Escriva, #179, Friends of God

Now, to answer the OP’s question, there is a small passage in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, easily missed, but is, according to him, the best way of avoiding lust and even gluttony:

Hence the most effective remedy against intemperance is not to dwell on the consideration of singulars.
ST, II-II, Q 142, Art 3

What does this mean? Singulars are real, particular things that we can actually see, hear, or smell, prompting the desire to taste or touch. Therefore admiring a woman’s looks is actually a temptation to lust already.

But this advice, though it is just that in the Summa Theologica, does not end there. For you see the advice implies that you have to focus instead on the universals. Universals are the philosophical things that make objects in common with others, thus permitting classification. A woman is somebody’s daughter, sister, or wife. Focus on one of those. For example, you admire a beautiful woman. Instead of focusing on what singular/s makes that woman beautiful, focus on instead the universal/s that the woman should be beautiful for: “Oh wow, she is going to make a husband very happy” or “Kudos to the parents for raising a beautiful woman” or (my favorite) “Oh God, thank you for lighting my day up with the most beautiful of your creations!”
 
Catechism:

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.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II
 
There is a difference between appreciating beauty in a non lustful way…and lust. One needs though to exercise the virtues of chastity and modesty (see Catechism). And there can be a danger that is present…and it depends on what one of course means…how the persons are dressed, ones temptation etc etc etc.

And certainly there is a difference between admiring say a vase and the beauty of a woman…*concupisence *can play into the later in particular way. This brings a good amount of difficulty to the matter (theory is one thing… practice can be another).

One needs also to know oneself and also practice a reasonable custodia occulorum (custody of the eyes).

Key to is that one sees a woman who is beautiful sees a “beautiful person” …
 
I would not over emphasize the …“possessive” aspect that can enter into lust. Lust is not defined by such…but rather see the CCC above.
 
Catechism:

II. THE BATTLE FOR PURITY

2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail
  • by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;
  • by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;313
  • by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;314
  • by prayer:
I thought that continence arose from one’s own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know . . . that no one can be continent unless you grant it. For you would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you.315

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of the body. It protests, for example, against the voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the pressures of prevailing ideologies.

2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person.

2525 Christian purity requires a purification of the social climate. It requires of the communications media that their presentations show concern for respect and restraint. Purity of heart brings freedom from widespread eroticism and avoids entertainment inclined to voyeurism and illusion.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a9.htm#II
 
karanth said:
In my humble opinion, the Church obsesses more about sex (in the name of righteousness) than the average man or woman ever gives time or purpose to.
Click to expand...
Really? It seems to me that the opposite is true. It is society that is obsessed with sex, and in a very unhealthy way. The Church, on the other hand, tries to remind people of its proper place and function, and only then because there is so much misinformation being shoved down our throats every day that it’s impossible to avoid.

The Church isn’t trying to teach children about sodomy in public school, making videos of women masturbating with a crucifix, parading around like streetwakers, talking about their conquests from ‘last night at the club’ on tv or in the breakroom, etc. When I go to church I hear the Gospel and about the need for repentance and salvation, about true love.

The only Catholics I ever hear prattling on obsessively about sex are the heterodox who are trying to demonise the Church for their own ends. Think about it. You never hear any nominally Catholic celebrities or politicians attacking the Church because of her position on transubstantiation, the precise wording of the Nicene Creed, whether the use of EMHC is being abused, etc. It’s always about her teachings on sexual and family matters.
nuntym said:
I have always thought that the monks were Catholic in the story.
Click to expand...
That is how I originally heard it as well.
 
Thank you for your help, especially the link to the Jimmy Akin article. God bless. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top