Marital Lust

[Methodi]

You said,
“If a person with ssa is looking lustfully at a person, it is natural for him or her not unatural, being they cant help the same sex attraction thing they have”

I said lustful, physical attraction to the same sex is UNNATURAL. That is, it is not our nature. More specifically, God did not create us this way. To drive this point home, I asked you if a man looks with a lustful sexual attraction at a dog, would that be natural for him. These so-called homosexuals need to see a psychiatrist; if they can find one that understands the Biblical perspective. It is not proper to say that it is natural for them; yet God did not create us with that nature.

Paul said, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection . . . " (II Timothy 3:1-3). Homosexuality is an unnatural affection, practiced by persons “that defile themselves with mankind” (I Timothy 1:10), translated in the New American Standard Version “homosexuals,” and in the New International Version, “perverts.”

God created Homosexuals, they have been here since the beginning of time, & throughout history, they are not sickos, just burdened with a heavier cross than the heterosexual, do U think they like it that way or chose it, well ur all wet if u do, and again I say since they are attracted to their own sex it would be normal for them to look lustfully at another man, since they are honosexual through no fault of their own, I didnt say commit the act i said look at with lust. Just thank God ur not a homo

 

[eichenb2]

God created Homosexuals, they have been here since the beginning of time, & throughout history, they are not sickos, just burdened with a heavier cross than the heterosexual, do U think they like it that way or chose it, well ur all wet if u do, and again I say since they are attracted to their own sex it would be normal for them to look lustfully at another man, since they are honosexual through no fault of their own, I didnt say commit the act i said look at with lust. Just thank God ur not a homo

First, I think the Bible does not see it as natural.
Second, I don’t think you should be so mean to such people. Please watch your language.

 

[Methodi]

First, I think the Bible does not see it as natural.
Second, I don’t think you should be so mean to such people. Please watch your language.

You really do twists things man, where have I been mean I am more or less taking up for them for having such a burden to carry,& trust me Homos are all over the place in every profession Every walk of life, get used to it. What the Bible says & what is ,are two different things

 

[eichenb2]

You really do twists things man, where have I been mean I am more or less taking up for them for having such a burden to carry,& trust me Homos are all over the place in every profession Every walk of life, get used to it. What the Bible says & what is ,are two different things

First, they are not “homos”. That is derogatory and mean-spirited.
Second, I am not and was not contenting that people with homosexual attraction exist. Sure, they exist. The Bible does not indicate that this is a NATURAL attraction. The furthest that the Catechism will go is to say that it is not fully understood. I don’t know of any official Catholic resource that indicates the attraction is NATURAL, as long as that feel it is so. On that basis…I am the King of England!!! But, that does not make it so.

 

[Methodi]

First, they are not “homos”. That is derogatory and mean-spirited.
Second, I am not and was not contenting that people with homosexual attraction exist. Sure, they exist. The Bible does not indicate that this is a NATURAL attraction. The furthest that the Catechism will go is to say that it is not fully understood. I don’t know of any official Catholic resource that indicates the attraction is NATURAL, as long as that feel it is so. On that basis…I am the King of England!!! But, that does not make it so.

The catechism of The catholic Church says they are that way thru no fault of their own, & when I use homos its meant as an abbreviation, I been mixed all in with gay people for years, some of them are very fine people. I was always one to ask each one I met how they became that way, most told me they felt the feeling toward their own sex at a Very very early age

 

[eichenb2]

The catechism of The catholic Church says they are that way thru no fault of their own, & when I use homos its meant as an abbreviation, I been mixed all in with gay people for years, some of them are very fine people. I was always one to ask each one I met how they became that way, most told me they felt the feeling toward their own sex at a Very very early age

What about the one who says that he is homosexual when he is 21 and then decide later that they are not, or vice versa? At which point do we believe him; since we have no scientific evidence of a gay gene? They have bought into the gay culture of indentity by sexual preference.
Btw, here is the catechism reference.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. (this means it is not natural) They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered ( again, not natural), constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[Methodi]

What about the one who says that he is homosexual when he is 21 and then decide later that they are not, or vice versa? At which point do we believe him; since we have no scientific evidence of a gay gene? They have bought into the gay culture of indentity by sexual preference.
Btw, here is the catechism reference.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. (this means it is not natural) They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered ( again, not natural), constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Yes, sad that anyone would be born a Homosexual, they have many trials , non aceptance by piers, most told me they ccould never ever have a sex relationship with a woman, some have went against their inclination & married , only for it to lead to disaster, I asked a catholic Priest one time if Gay men should marry he said no. So regardless of what the catechism or anything else says, what are these people to do with themselves who dont fit in

 

[eichenb2]

Yes, sad that anyone would be born a Homosexual, they have many trials , non aceptance by piers, most told me they ccould never ever have a sex relationship with a woman, some have went against their inclination & married , only for it to lead to disaster, I asked a catholic Priest one time if Gay men should marry he said no. So regardless of what the catechism or anything else says, what are these people to do with themselves who dont fit in

1. Seek psychiatric help (Christian)
2. Celibacy
3. Pray
4. Reconciliation
   BTW, to a Catholic it does matter what the catechism says.

 

[Methodi]

1. Seek psychiatric help (Christian)
2. Celibacy
3. Pray
4. Reconciliation
   BTW, to a Catholic it does matter what the catechism says.

BUNK!! All that has been tried & tested, with not many good results. There are a few who have consecrated themselves to the Lord, But trust me not many. If they are born that way aint nothing gonna change them unless they are self made which very few are

 

[eichenb2]

BUNK!! All that has been tried & tested, with not many good results. There are a few who have consecrated themselves to the Lord, But trust me not many. If they are born that way aint nothing gonna change them unless they are self made which very few are

IF they are born that way…

 

[Vico]

EvelynEVF wrote on Jan 24: “I don’t see anything wrong with having sex primarily to release tension, provided that this is not the usual, normal reason you do it.” and Jan 25: “As long as you are sharing the rest of life together, there is no reason to be fussy about desiring your wife and doing something about it.”

If the action is sinful, then it is so in each instance, that is, being sinful has nothing to do with what is usual practice. It is certainly possible to be lustful with the spouse, as the definition of lust is:

“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.” - Catechism 2351

If sex is reduced merely to relief of tension it does not produce a unity between the male and female and can be considered lustful.

On Jan 25 Methodi wrote:

“Its not lust, Its a natural function, sex is an important aspect to marriage, … withholding the marriage act within a marriage is grounds for divorce.”

In non sacramental marriage there can be divorce, and a ratified sacramental marriage could be null if consummation does not occur, however, divorce in sacramental marriage is not possible, which shows that sacramental marriage is not primarily about the sex act.

Natural means ordered and rational in the Catechism, and Catechism item 2351, professes that “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.” Therefore lust is not natural. We are called to be chaste in our marital relationship: charitable, just, dignified, respectful, and moderate.

 

[Spirithound]

BUNK!! All that has been tried & tested, with not many good results. There are a few who have consecrated themselves to the Lord, But trust me not many. If they are born that way aint nothing gonna change them unless they are self made which very few are

There was nothing in that list that entailed any more change than a lot of heterosexuals are called to.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I am reading Heaven’s Song, by Christopher West, and he does a far better job of saying what I wanted to communicate when I said it was okay to sometimes have sex primarily to release tension. He says that desire creates love! I had never ever looked at it that way, and I have no personal experience to draw from, but he says that “neutral” desire, seeing the incarnation in the body of the other, will stimulate the feelings and actions of love. So tension may make one think of having sex, but actually approaching the lover with that desire, in purity, will end up in an act of love, not neutrality (which is what I was calling it). It reads so far as if there is no place for neutrality once the lover is approached/seen. It either becomes selfless love or selfish lust.

I am really intrigued with this.

 

[lovemysix]

Maybe I’m being totally naive here, but it seems to me a happily married couple seldom experiences lust within marriage. My husband is as red-blooded as anybody else out there, but I can honestly say it would devastate him to think he was using me as an object for his own pleasure! Granted, I AM looking at this from a female perspective I truly believe in my own heart that he has never treated me or viewed me as an object during our lovemaking. I WANT him to experience incredible pleasure each and every time we make love, and his pleasure is a good part of the reason I find pleasure in it. It’s the same for him; if he thought for a minute that I wasn’t enjoying myself, he’d want to stop immediately.

So I guess it’s hard for me to imagine what lust looks like within a happy and loving marriage. I’m not trying to put us above anybody else—God knows that we have enough faults of our own----but I do have a hard time wrapping my head around how lust can be a big problem in a relationship where the spouses put each other’s needs above their own.

Lauren

 

[coda]

I have read much on the subject of marital lust and love vs. lust on this web site and understand the importance of not treating one’s spouse as a sex object. I still have a question on the subject. If having sex with one’s spouse for the purpose of relieving sexual tension is considered lust what is one to do when this tension is present? Avoid having sex? It would seem that this would just increase the tension and create a Catch 22 situation.

When you are married just “go with it” dont overthink things…your marriage can suffer=not good. Just "end up’ where YOU are supposed to…

 

[EvelynEVF]

Lauren,

I don’t think you’re being naive at all. When I made my earlier post about not worrying about lust if spouses are fully sharing in each other’s lives, that’s a big chunk of what I meant. It sounded to me like one of the early posters was afraid of tipping over into lust almost accidentally, and feeling the need to really examine himself every single time, just in case.

I agree with you–if a husband and wife are loving each other in all the areas of their marriage, loving each other in the marriage bed ought to be a natural result.

My spiritual director once said that his philosophy was to make love at all times, never considering it confined to the marriage bed. I have been privileged to spend a great deal of time with him and his wife, and I have to say that it sure works for them!

 

[Methodi]

EvelynEVF wrote on Jan 24: “I don’t see anything wrong with having sex primarily to release tension, provided that this is not the usual, normal reason you do it.” and Jan 25: “As long as you are sharing the rest of life together, there is no reason to be fussy about desiring your wife and doing something about it.”

If the action is sinful, then it is so in each instance, that is, being sinful has nothing to do with what is usual practice. It is certainly possible to be lustful with the spouse, as the definition of lust is:

“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.” - Catechism 2351

If sex is reduced merely to relief of tension it does not produce a unity between the male and female and can be considered lustful.

On Jan 25 Methodi wrote:

“Its not lust, Its a natural function, sex is an important aspect to marriage, … withholding the marriage act within a marriage is grounds for divorce.”

In non sacramental marriage there can be divorce, and a ratified sacramental marriage could be null if consummation does not occur, however, divorce in sacramental marriage is not possible, which shows that sacramental marriage is not primarily about the sex act.

Natural means ordered and rational in the Catechism, and Catechism item 2351, professes that “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.” Therefore lust is not natural. We are called to be chaste in our marital relationship: charitable, just, dignified, respectful, and moderate.

I disagree, sex is important to most men maybe not woman but the men, & in the catholic church, they dont call it divorce anymore, its an annullment, & I think not fulfilling the marriage duty is grounds for annullment. I see very few marriages around as You describe, most catholics are having sex long before they are married, & its for sex pleasure, recreational sex, so why wouldnt a man lust after his wife when there is a marriage, thats what makes the world go around, & dont kid urself, when a couple gets intimate, I dont think the first thought is to conceive , just my opinion, telling it how i see it not how it should be.
Most people are preoccupied with sex make no mistake about it

 

[Vico]

Methodi wrote: “I think not fulfilling the marriage duty is grounds for annullment.”

No, that is not a basis for annullment. Annullment means that there was never a marriage in the first place due to a defect. Of a true marriage, only an unconsummated marriage can be annulled. Even separation does not undo the valid marriage, since it must have the qualities of willing, perpetual, exclusive, and open to life, in addition to no impediments. Adultery in the general sense means the corruption of lust, mental or physical.

Methodi wrote: “I see very few marriages around as You describe”

Yes, as a world we have strayed far from what the Church teaches, much to our suffering.

Methodi wrote: “Most people are preoccupied with sex make no mistake about it”

I see that, in fact that is why they need guidance.

 

[Methodi]

Methodi wrote: “I think not fulfilling the marriage duty is grounds for annullment.”

No, that is not a basis for annullment. Annullment means that there was never a marriage in the first place due to a defect. Of a true marriage, only an unconsummated marriage can be annulled. Even separation does not undo the valid marriage, since it must have the qualities of willing, perpetual, exclusive, and open to life, in addition to no impediments. Adultery in the general sense means the corruption of lust, mental or physical.

Methodi wrote: “I see very few marriages around as You describe”

Yes, as a world we have strayed far from what the Church teaches, much to our suffering.

Methodi wrote: “Most people are preoccupied with sex make no mistake about it”

I see that, in fact that is why they need guidance.

There are many grounds for annullment, & I do believe that is one of them, maybe i am wrong, the list for obtaining an annullment is long so I heard. I positively do not see how there was never a marriage, makes no sense to me, married By a catholic priest, In the church, receiving the sacrament of marriage, , how can it be possible there was no marriage. I dont believe that for a minute, as far as I am concerned, they were married in the eyes of God. I think thats such a lame excuse

 

[YipYupYep]

I wouldn’t loose much sleep over this. You seem to be sensitive to the situation. I mean, what’s a guy to do?

A lot of people don’t like hearing the truth, but men tend to compartmentalize sex from the rest of the love relationship. It’s our nature as men to focus almost exclusively on the physical during sexual intimacy. There’s a lot of people who want to call that “objectifying”, I disagree with that.

That well said.

There was an interesting article on the home page of AOL yesterday. A study revealed that 75% to 85% of women fake sexual pleasure during intercourse. Why? What is up with that? How can I relate to that predicament as a male person? I read the words, I understand whats going on, but I can not place myself in the situation. That was 75 to 80% not 100% thank the Lord.

As a rule. As a race of human beings here on earth, there is just a difference on how men and women relate to and experience sex. Men really are from Mars.

What do you think?