Men: How do YOU know when you are lusting versus being tempted/seeing beauty?

[Lazerlike42]

It is possible to see a person as an object without desiring to use them as an object.

It seems to me that looking at a woman and enjoying her appearence is using her as an object. You are using her as something that gives you enjoyment just as if you were actually doing things with her, the only difference being in one case you’re touching her and in the other you’re not.

Let me put it from my perspective. If I see an attractive woman, and I am looking at her breasts, but I am not thinking about doing anything with her, and I am not getting aroused, and I am not having fantasies of any other sort, but I just find her breasts incredibly attractive to me and they make me feel good in some way aside from what I have already mentioned, then how is this not lust?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

It is possible to see a person as an object without desiring to use them as an object.

This is very perceptive. Do you believe that people are objects? They are. A person meets every definition of an object. ‘Objectification’ is reducing persons to ONLY an object. Denying their personhood. This was a key from Pope John Paul II’s teaching that was critical to me. Bodies are objects. We cannot deny that truth. But bodies are not JUST objects. We must treat them with the respect due persons.

It seems to me that looking at a woman and enjoying her appearence is using her as an object.

True, but that is not sinful, if the person’s dignity as a person is left intact. My employer uses me as an object of production. If that is all that I am to him, then he errors morally. But if he also gives me the respect due a person, then he may licitly expect that this ‘object’ also produce.

You are using her as something that gives you enjoyment just as if you were actually doing things with her, the only difference being in one case you’re touching her and in the other you’re not.

Use is not inherently abuse. Use, ordered to what God has in mind, is not abuse. I may ‘use’ anything I want, licitly, even persons, if such use is ordered to God’s purpose.

Let me put it from my perspective. If I see an attractive woman, and I am looking at her breasts, but I am not thinking about doing anything with her, and I am not getting aroused, and I am not having fantasies of any other sort, but I just find her breasts incredibly attractive to me and they make me feel good in some way aside from what I have already mentioned, then how is this not lust?

God made breasts to appear beautiful. What you describe is not lust, because it is ordered to God’s purpose. What you describe is a natural recognition of the beauty of God’s creation. That is not abuse, and is therefore not lust. As soon as it turns to abuse, it is lust.

If you admire a woman for her basketball abilities, would this not also be lust, by your definition? If you take great pleasure (non-sexual) seeing her demonstrate her skill at handling the ball, dishing out great passes, or sinking a high percentage of three pointers, is this abuse? No, it is acknowledging the beauty of God’s creation. If you admired a man’s physical strength, would this be lust? Again, no, assuming that you were not entertaining sexual desires, which in this case would always represent abuse, reducing a person to just an object.

Thank you so very much for the discussion, your questions are helpful to me.

Dan

 

[Lazerlike42]

Thank you for the discussion, I do feel like you are helping me get somewhere.

What is it that you mean by “abuse?”

How would you explain how to look at a woman’s “object” of a body without destroying her dignity?

I realized I was not wording my example about the breasts well. What if, given the same situation I described, I was not only recognizing them but actually looking at them for, say, 5 to 10 seconds?

 

[cor]

Lust is defined as inordinate sexual desire. It means that one is desiring an illicit sexual act. Apprehending the beauty of a woman and having it inspire an emotion of satisfaction, is not lust, it seems to me – it’s just being satisfied with a created good. Ideally, I suppose, apprehending created beauty, should inspire us to greater appreciation of the Beauty Who is God.

Though I suppose it’s possible to imagine an illicit sexual act without desiring it, it may not be wise since the imagining of it could lead to the desiring of it.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Thank you for the discussion, I do feel like you are helping me get somewhere.

What is it that you mean by “abuse?”

How would you explain how to look at a woman’s “object” of a body without destroying her dignity?

I realized I was not wording my example about the breasts well. What if, given the same situation I described, I was not only recognizing them but actually looking at them for, say, 5 to 10 seconds?

This may be incomplete as I only have a few minutes, so please excuse me if there is not enough here to fully answer your questions.

Abuse is disordered use. We are called to use things in a manner consistent with God’s purpose. Abuse is use that is out of alignment with God’s purpose.

How to look at a woman’s body without destroying her dignity? It depends on the woman and the circumstances. For my mother, it will be slightly different than for my sister, which will be slightly different than for my neighbor, which will be a whole lot different than for my wife. A woman’s dignity is destroyed when she has been used for a purpose that you have selected that is not in alignment to the relationship God has ordained that you have with her at that time. God wants me to have a particular use (relationship) for my mother, a different one for my sister, a different one for my neighbor, a different one for my wife. My use of these persons must be consistent with God’s design. The short answer is, dignity is maintained if abuse is not present.

What if, given the same situation I described, I was not only recognizing them but actually looking at them for, say, 5 to 10 seconds?

The question must be asked and answered, what has God ordained for our relationship. If you are her 10 month old son, and you are hungry, not being able to speak yet, this may be your way of letting your mother know that the ‘use’ God has ordained for her is to feed you. If you are her doctor and she is in need of a breast exam, 5 to 10 seconds is not enough. If you are her husband, then gaze upon her beauty, but do not stop there. If you are a true artist, responding to the Pope’s challenge that artists depict the human form in a true and moral way, and you are studying a nude model in order to accurately and beautifully portray God’s abundant creation, then guard against abuse, but paint away. In most other relationships, though, the answer is likely that such a long look (stare) is not ordered to God’s design of your relationship with this person.

Thank you for the discourse.

Sincerely, Dan

 

[StCsDavid]

You personally.

It comes down to the quality of the thoughts that go with the response to seeing beauty. If they are anything like *“I want some of that,”

• then I pretty well know I’m heading down an impure path. I try to change the response to “There goes one of God’s blessings.”

 

[BobP123]

I think there is a very solid line. At the risk of triggering some readers sensitivities, for a male, it would be if/when an erection occurs. That is a very, very good sign that the line has been crossed. At that point, it is time to ‘move along’.
Dan

At that point, many chemical reactions within your body have already taken place and are possibly triggering an avalanche of still more mental and physical changes. Maybe that point of crossing of which you speak has been reached way before that.

It is important to note that the mind is a very active sexual organ. Even if she is unattractive, looking at a woman longer than a few seconds can bring upon lust.

 

[chevalier]

If it made me want to have sex with the person (I don’t mean marry and have marital relations), it would of itself be temptation, but entertaining it would be sinful.

As for natural attraction, it’s not sinful, so experiencing it is not sinful. Welcoming it may be a bit more problematic, but there’s some difference between attractive and sexy, isn’t there? I remember some time ago in a thread here I said something along the lines of intending and obtaining those sensations of attraction being wrong… A missaying on my part, confusing at best. I don’t remember which thread it was for sure, but anyway. It can’t really be sinful if I want to look at an attractive lady, so long as I don’t start entertaining thoughts of possessing her sexually, obtaining sexual gratification from it etc. But if I make the choice to go out with an attractive girl, I guess I also make the choice to experience attraction to her. In that sense, it doesn’t ring wrong to me.

If I start experiencing sexual temptations, I stop looking. If it’s sexually intended, I don’t look (sometimes comes with the fight if the model is particularly pretty and doesn’t look slutty - sluttiness creeps me off so much it defeats the purpose).

What troubles me recently is that Jesus said whoever looked upon a woman to lust after her, committed adultery with her in his heart. This suggests mortal sin and the fact that I can’t precisely tell the difference between normal attraction/appreciation and the disordered kind. I know the extremes - when it’s not a sin and when it’s definitely a sin, but I don’t exactly know at which point it becomes a sin. This is further complicated by the fact that sins against the VI are believed to be all grave matter by traditional moral theology. So sometimes I have a conflict between scrupples and reason when evaluating a situation in which I looked on purpose, the reason clearly being the lady or picture or sculpture or a rendered figure in computer graphics being attractive (it’s actually easier with real persons for some reason, maybe related with dignity), but then some form of temptation came and I didn’t know if I fought it well enough. Or the reaction became a bit stronger or a bit more biological and while I did stop looking, perhaps it took a fight. Then comes the problem of my having intentionally done what led to the temptation that came.

If 1) the intentional quality of looking, 2) the presence of at least minimally disordered desires or reactions made a mortal sin in a split second, the world would be full of mortal sin. But it is anyway and this is not exactly a proper argument. Knowledge and consent being less than full mitigate responsibility, but don’t ask me at which point it becomes or stops being mortal. I don’t know. It must be mortal if an informed person with uninhibited will chooses to engage in a sexual fantasy because it feels good. But, “looks to lust after,” doesn’t mention fantasies. It talks about just looking. I’m not sure if a single short somewhat charged and not really pure glance makes a mortal sin, but it looks quite serious to me. It somehow tends to feel to me that merely looking and then stopping when something starts feeling awry doesn’t make the sin completely avoided. I’m also not sure to what extent lust is possible without genital sensations - improper thoughts, disrespectful looks etc, but without a strong feeling coming “from there” - and if that can be mortal. In that case, it wouldn’t be, “I want some of that,” as much as, “I want an eyeful.”

At any rate, for a quick summary without splitting the hair in four, if you’re looking at someone and enjoying the appearance but without demeaning the person, then it’s not sinful. Even if we’re talking about nude art. If you demean the person, or if you desire what you can’t get and embrace that desire, then it’s wrong. It’s wrong if you willingly engage in fantasies of sexual activities with that person. It’s better to avoid temptation than to test your strength. When in doubt, stop looking.

 

[Lazerlike42]

If it made me want to have sex with the person (I don’t mean marry and have marital relations), it would of itself be temptation, but entertaining it would be sinful.

As for natural attraction, it’s not sinful, so experiencing it is not sinful. Welcoming it may be a bit more problematic, but there’s some difference between attractive and sexy, isn’t there? I remember some time ago in a thread here I said something along the lines of intending and obtaining those sensations of attraction being wrong… A missaying on my part, confusing at best. I don’t remember which thread it was for sure, but anyway. It can’t really be sinful if I want to look at an attractive lady, so long as I don’t start entertaining thoughts of possessing her sexually, obtaining sexual gratification from it etc. But if I make the choice to go out with an attractive girl, I guess I also make the choice to experience attraction to her. In that sense, it doesn’t ring wrong to me.

If I start experiencing sexual temptations, I stop looking. If it’s sexually intended, I don’t look (sometimes comes with the fight if the model is particularly pretty and doesn’t look slutty - sluttiness creeps me off so much it defeats the purpose).

What troubles me recently is that Jesus said whoever looked upon a woman to lust after her, committed adultery with her in his heart. This suggests mortal sin and the fact that I can’t precisely tell the difference between normal attraction/appreciation and the disordered kind. I know the extremes - when it’s not a sin and when it’s definitely a sin, but I don’t exactly know at which point it becomes a sin. This is further complicated by the fact that sins against the VI are believed to be all grave matter by traditional moral theology. So sometimes I have a conflict between scrupples and reason when evaluating a situation in which I looked on purpose, the reason clearly being the lady or picture or sculpture or a rendered figure in computer graphics being attractive (it’s actually easier with real persons for some reason, maybe related with dignity), but then some form of temptation came and I didn’t know if I fought it well enough. Or the reaction became a bit stronger or a bit more biological and while I did stop looking, perhaps it took a fight. Then comes the problem of my having intentionally done what led to the temptation that came.

If 1) the intentional quality of looking, 2) the presence of at least minimally disordered desires or reactions made a mortal sin in a split second, the world would be full of mortal sin. But it is anyway and this is not exactly a proper argument. Knowledge and consent being less than full mitigate responsibility, but don’t ask me at which point it becomes or stops being mortal. I don’t know. It must be mortal if an informed person with uninhibited will chooses to engage in a sexual fantasy because it feels good. But, “looks to lust after,” doesn’t mention fantasies. It talks about just looking. I’m not sure if a single short somewhat charged and not really pure glance makes a mortal sin, but it looks quite serious to me. It somehow tends to feel to me that merely looking and then stopping when something starts feeling awry doesn’t make the sin completely avoided. I’m also not sure to what extent lust is possible without genital sensations - improper thoughts, disrespectful looks etc, but without a strong feeling coming “from there” - and if that can be mortal. In that case, it wouldn’t be, “I want some of that,” as much as, “I want an eyeful.”

These are my sentiments exactly, especially the last paragraph. This is what I need help with.

 

[rwoehmke]

Once there were two monks walking along a riverbed when they came across a scantily clad woman who needed help crossing the river. One of the brothers picked up the woman and carried her across to the other side. The two continued to walk on for a while when one brother asked," How could you have picked up a woman and carried her when she was so scandalously dressed?"
Well you see when I got to this side of the river I put her down. You, on the other hand, are still carrying her.

There is a lot of wisdom here. One of the problems that occurs with “lustful” looking is that the image will stick with you and recur time and again; sometimes for days or months if one is particularly susceptible. Sort of like the “flashbacks” of battle fatigue. There is than a temptation to continue to entertain these “visions” to the point of committing physical sins.

I have to maintain “control of my eyes” as the Jesuits used to say because I was one who was particularly sensitive to such flashbacks. I guess maybe some men aren’t. At least they claim to be able to look dispassionately. For someone like me that is hard to imagine.

 

[trth_skr]

I wish that this were true, or that I could believe it. I have also looked into this a lot, and asked many people. I have been told that it is not only when you start thinking about activities or fantasies that lust occurs, but when you look at a woman’s body and get enjoyment from it. However, I know that this is not wrong in and of itself. I know that there is a line somewhere between fantasizing and simply looking at a body and finding it attractive that where it becomes lust, but I have no idea where that is.

I have not read all the thread, but I keep seeing a comon theme- it depends on how one reacts to seeing a woman’s body, etc.

How about- women should do a better job covering their bodies? How about- we are in a fallen state to start with, and weak, and sinners, and constantly tempted by the 2 beasts who work with the power of the dragon (Apocalypse- and yes it has been so since the cross) and we should look out for each other. Unfortunately, Most people are under the control of the 2 beasts, and will continue to be so until the second coming. Beyond that, if you see an attractive woman promoting her body, you are going to be tempted, and should pray to be able to control that temptation. Perhaps through that prayer, and the understanding of the spiritual battle we currently are in (and have been since the cross; though we also have the possibility of salvation), we can come to see the reality of that attraction, and learn to not be tempted by it.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[chevalier]

That women could do a better job as a rule is one thing - but it’s not like just a belly line plus a big cleavage will compell a man. In a normal situation, that is. For example, yesterday, I was playing a roleplaying game and buying a better armour suit for a computer-driven pixelated henchwoman. Given identical defensive properties, I decided between a nicely crafted chainmail and a somewhat mysterious breastplate (no indecent word, it’s a type of armour and it’s basically what the Cavaliers or Roundheads wore) purely on how well they lay - and the breastplate turned out ugly and a bit slutty (which creeps me off), while the chainmail was pretty, so I took the chain. In the process, it appeared the game makers took quite a lot of exposure liberty as far as armourless characters went, so I zoomed to see if my eyes weren’t failing me because I couldn’t believe (it appeared more decent on a previous occasion from a different angle). I didn’t get any kind of “that” reaction, nor was I intending it, but then I spent a good deal of the following morning questioning my motives and having tons of remourse about the fact it started with my eying the chainmail on the druid (that is seeing it lay nicely and the graphics of the armour were done well). Reasoning with myself that I would never have thought twice about a situation like that and that Matt 5:28 didn’t apply, didn’t make my day that much better, as I kept thinking how I could possibly have looked objectifyingly at some point, it becoming intentional because I first wanted to see how the chainmail lay and I liked it. And when I started convincing myself it really didn’t look enough for a mortal sin, I started feeling as if I were lax and had a moral double-standard, and maybe God was telling me through my conscience that I was cutting myself too much slack with the VI. And again looking for the gratification that I might have obtained or something evil that might have been in my motives, or thinking I wanted it but wasn’t realising it, or that maybe I got a minimal degree of it that I didn’t notice and then intention applied and knowledge and all. This is the kind of stuff that comes after too much stress (working on a project and being disappointed with my very low tempo) and too little sleep (got up for mass at 8:15 after going to bed after 4:30). I guess everyone has days like this. I sometimes wonder how many sins I make up and how many real ones I miss. I think one needs two things: 1) proper catechesis, 2) a cool mind, to deal with such matters. And no, I don’t think I’m normally scrupulous. Or particularly lax. Just a bad day. Perhaps I spend too much time discussing moral theology. Or maybe I’m suffering for being too nitpicking about it.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think the problem is that the Church has very little to say about lust other than “don’t do it.” It offers techincal definitions and so forth, but nothing that gets into real specifics. Just saying, “Don’t objectify” isn’t really enough for most people, because that’s obvious. The real question is what objectifying means - not intellectually, but experientially.

I feel like I, and a lot of other Catholic men, are walking around with a tremendous deal of cognitive dissonance about the issue. We’re told, on the one hand, that women are God’s creation and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with looking at them, and that they are a good and God made them to be attractive and beautiful and we should say “thank you God for this beuty,” but on the other hand, we are told we should look away from women once we have recognized the beauty. If it’s a good, if it’s right that we are attracted to it, and it is a beautiful thing we shouldn’t look at as bad, why are we supoosed to look away?

We’re told things like, “look at all the nudes in the Vatican” and that again, the natural human body is beautiful and a good and we should appreciate it, but would anyone consider looking at a nude of the Blessed Virgin or one of the other female saints? What’s the difference, really?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I think the problem is that the Church has very little to say about lust other than “don’t do it.” It offers techincal definitions and so forth, but nothing that gets into real specifics. Just saying, “Don’t objectify” isn’t really enough for most people, because that’s obvious. The real question is what objectifying means - not intellectually, but experientially.

I feel like I, and a lot of other Catholic men, are walking around with a tremendous deal of cognitive dissonance about the issue. We’re told, on the one hand, that women are God’s creation and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with looking at them, and that they are a good and God made them to be attractive and beautiful and we should say “thank you God for this beuty,” but on the other hand, we are told we should look away from women once we have recognized the beauty. If it’s a good, if it’s right that we are attracted to it, and it is a beautiful thing we shouldn’t look at as bad, why are we supoosed to look away?

We’re told things like, “look at all the nudes in the Vatican” and that again, the natural human body is beautiful and a good and we should appreciate it, but would anyone consider looking at a nude of the Blessed Virgin or one of the other female saints? What’s the difference, really?

I agree that the message we get from those speaking for the Church can be, or at least seem, confusing. One conclusion I have made in the past few years is that practically all I have heard is correct. What is generally missing however, are the circumstances in which each part of what is taught is correct. Without that addition, we mistakenly think that what is being taught are absolutes, when they are guidances serving absolutes.

One addition to my post of this morning. People can generally be good indicators of their own objectification. If someone feels as if they have been objectified, then generally, they have been. This takes some discernment, but not more than is required of other similar decisions we make on how to treat someone. If a woman is uncomfortable with the look, then it is likely she is being objectified by the looker. An intent gaze on a body part (which I have heard is common, and noticed) is viewed as an objectification because it denies, by some omission, the value of the whole person. The whole person has many parts; eyes, the windows to the soul, a face, the communicator of emotion, hands, instruments of good works, etc. If we are to treat someone as a person, these other beautiful things deserve appropriate attention in correspondance to their value and their real beauty.

Dan

 

[Lazerlike42]

I agree that the message we get from those speaking for the Church can be, or at least seem, confusing. One conclusion I have made in the past few years is that practically all I have heard is correct. What is generally missing however, are the circumstances in which each part of what is taught is correct. Without that addition, we mistakenly think that what is being taught are absolutes, when they are guidances serving absolutes.

One addition to my post of this morning. People can generally be good indicators of their own objectification. If someone feels as if they have been objectified, then generally, they have been. This takes some discernment, but not more than is required of other similar decisions we make on how to treat someone. If a woman is uncomfortable with the look, then it is likely she is being objectified by the looker. An intent gaze on a body part (which I have heard is common, and noticed) is viewed as an objectification because it denies, by some omission, the value of the whole person. The whole person has many parts; eyes, the windows to the soul, a face, the communicator of emotion, hands, instruments of good works, etc. If we are to treat someone as a person, these other beautiful things deserve appropriate attention in correspondance to their value and their real beauty.

Dan

I agree completely with all that.

At the same time, what causes me problems is that if we look at the breasts, for instance, as something we aren’t supposed to look at because it detracts from the whole person, why aren’t we destracting from the whole person when we look at a person’s eyes or their hair, for instance? That’s also excluding quite a lot. Another thing is the fact that we are in some way also calling the breasts “bad” by looking at it this way, aren’t we?

 

[Chancellare]

You personally.

Sorry to be simplistic about this but this is the only one proven in practice:

Mortification.
Mortification is the prayer of the senses. It is also likened to starving and feeding. First you should ensure you understand and differentiate the disordered desires from the licit ones. Since you said you are intellectually capable, that should not be an issue to start with.

Then you starve the bad thoughts and feed the good ones. Everytime the disordered desire or thought causes you to sin, deprive yourself of something you enjoy. On the other hand, everytime you succeed in overcoming your disordered desire, reward yourself with something that is more worthy of your self-esteem. The more you practice this method, the more you veer your thoughts to other things aside from lustful thoughts.

In passing, I remember an Indian story. I forgot the exact one but here’s what I can recall:

A young Indian asked his father what will he do to be a good man. His father said there are 2 wolves hiding in each man: the good wolf and the bad wolf. One must help the good wolf kill the bad one. The young Indian asked: " But how do I determine which wolf will survive?" Answer: “the one you feed”.

As it was with the wolves, so it is with our desires.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Sorry to be simplistic about this but this is the only one proven in practice:

Mortification.
Mortification is the prayer of the senses. It is also likened to starving and feeding. First you should ensure you understand and differentiate the disordered desires from the licit ones. Since you said you are intellectually capable, that should not be an issue to start with.

Then you starve the bad thoughts and feed the good ones. Everytime the disordered desire or thought causes you to sin, deprive yourself of something you enjoy. On the other hand, everytime you succeed in overcoming your disordered desire, reward yourself with something that is more worthy of your self-esteem. The more you practice this method, the more you veer your thoughts to other things aside from lustful thoughts.

In passing, I remember an Indian story. I forgot the exact one but here’s what I can recall:

A young Indian asked his father what will he do to be a good man. His father said there are 2 wolves hiding in each man: the good wolf and the bad wolf. One must help the good wolf kill the bad one. The young Indian asked: " But how do I determine which wolf will survive?" Answer: “the one you feed”.

As it was with the wolves, so it is with our desires.

Thanks for the advice! I do understand all of this. My problem is not this. My problem is recognizing what is a sin and what is not. I can’t go mortifying myself for things that aren’t sins, because that will cause all sorts of problems. If you read the thread, or even a post or two, you’ll see what I mean when I say I don’t know how to recognize when I am sinning.

 

[Nick]

It is not possible to sin unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. You cannot accidentally commit grave sin. Being tempted to sin is not a sin. Only when you actively engage your will, and you are sure that you are doing so, do you commit sin.

Now I don’t want to read too much into your situation, but it sounds as if you may be beginning to develop scrupulosity in this area. Do you struggle with obsessive compulsions in other areas of your life? I myself have been fighting with scrupulosity for awhile myself, and I know how horrendously painful it can be. It is especially important for those with scrupulosity to remember that it is not possible to accidentaly sin. The best advice I can give is to completely entrust yourself to a holy priest (such as Fr. Serpa) and do whatever he tells you. Also check out this website, and keep it handy for when you feel tempted or unsure.

Ten Commandments for the Scrupulous

 

[Lazerlike42]

It is not possible to sin unless you are absolutely sure of what you are doing. You cannot accidentally commit grave sin. Being tempted to sin is not a sin. Only when you actively engage your will, and you are sure that you are doing so, do you commit sin.

Now I don’t want to read too much into your situation, but it sounds as if you may be beginning to develop scrupulosity in this area. Do you struggle with obsessive compulsions in other areas of your life? I myself have been fighting with scrupulosity for awhile myself, and I know how horrendously painful it can be. It is especially important for those with scrupulosity to remember that it is not possible to accidentaly sin. The best advice I can give is to completely entrust yourself to a holy priest (such as Fr. Serpa) and do whatever he tells you. Also check out this website, and keep it handy for when you feel tempted or unsure.

Ten Commandments for the Scrupulous

Yes, I can be scrupulous, but I at least know when I am being scrupulous when I am. This is something beyond that. I am honestly seeking an answer to this question, and trying to reach a better understanding of what God expects of us. It’s a matter of really understanding what lust is, even beyond being afraid of sinning. I want to do a lot more than not sin. I want to live virtuously. I want to look upon women in the appropriate way, seeing them completely as their dignity deserves, and neither lusting after them nor rejecting their beauty as some sort of perverse thing.

I know, generally, when I do what I do accidentally and when its more than that. What I want to know is what things I am doing are actually sins that I need to work on and what ones are not, for two reasons. One, I need to work on my sins. Two, it’s very critical to not be rejecting as sinful things that are not, because that will make it very difficult to overcome the actual sins. For example, a person who has been taught it is a sin to so much as touch someone in any way, like giving a hug for example, is going to be much more frustrated trying to work on his sins than otherwise, because he will not only be working on so much more than he needs to, but he will also have his body and soul naturally reaching out for some of the things he should be getting, like a hug and causing him to think he’s sinning more and frustrating him, or worse causing his body and soul to start reaching for worse, more deeply sinful things to make up the difference (like a person who, after being on a strict diet for a few weeks, starts eating things far worse than they ever did before).

 

[Chancellare]

If you read the thread, or even a post or two, you’ll see what I mean when I say I don’t know how to recognize when I am sinning.

Sorry if I assumed too much credit on your part.

This could have been addressed on several threads about what constitutes sin. But then again, you will not be guided even if we rediscuss by the 3 elements as defined, right?

So your situation now is:

1. You don’t know how to apply the 3 elements what constitutes sin.
2. You don’t know whether your desires are disordered or not.
3. You don’t know when to stop staring at human anatomies.
4. You don’t know how to confine sexual thoughts at their proper time.
5. You can’t confine sexual fantasies and thoughts within the context of sacramental marriage.
   Did I cover all the species of your situation or are there more?