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

[Lazerlike42]

You personally.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

You personally.

This is an issue that I have contemplated for some time. I read a lot of Pope John Paul II, and that helped me.

Natural attraction is not lust. So if I happen to have a natural attraction to someone for any reason, that is not lust.

Lust is the desire to abuse.

If I respond to my attraction with a desire to abuse a person, then I would be lusting.

I feel that I can admire the beauty of any woman. However, if I find that my thoughts are turning to what I would want to do ‘with’ her, then that is lust.

Dan

 

[Lazerlike42]

This is an issue that I have contemplated for some time. I read a lot of Pope John Paul II, and that helped me.

Natural attraction is not lust. So if I happen to have a natural attraction to someone for any reason, that is not lust.

Lust is the desire to abuse.

If I respond to my attraction with a desire to abuse a person, then I would be lusting.

I feel that I can admire the beauty of any woman. However, if I find that my thoughts are turning to what I would want to do ‘with’ her, then that is lust.

Dan

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.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

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.

Have you read Pope John Paul II? Specifically his writings referred to as ‘The Theology of the Body’? Chrisopher West is a good resource as well.

The vatican is filled with art that depicts female nudity. Art is meant to ‘enjoy’. If you look at this art, and appreciate it (enjoy it)for the purpose that it was intended, that is not lust. If you attempt to use it for carnal fantasies, that is abuse of the art, and is lust.

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

 

[Lazerlike42]

Have you read Pope John Paul II? Specifically his writings referred to as ‘The Theology of the Body’? Chrisopher West is a good resource as well.

The vatican is filled with art that depicts female nudity. Art is meant to ‘enjoy’. If you look at this art, and appreciate it (enjoy it)for the purpose that it was intended, that is not lust. If you attempt to use it for carnal fantasies, that is abuse of the art, and is lust.

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

I have studied the theology of the body. Intellectual definitions do no good for me. I actually asked my priest - a very good one who has also studied theology of the body - if it is possible to lust without becoming aroused. He said yes, you do not have to become aroused to have lusted.

Here is some more background on me, that I wrote to someone recently:

Hello,

I am a 23 year old man who has just discovered your website today. It is very good, and I am grateful for it. I am a person who used to be very addicted to masturbation and pornography, for over a decade. On the day I found the Catholic Church, God gave to me the special Grace that I stopped immediately, and have not looked at pornography once and only masturbated once since that time over a year and a half ago.

However, I suffer terribly from lust, or what I think is lust. I don’t even know what it is. I know the technical definitions, I know it is objectifying people, and so forth; I am well-read in theology and have studied the Theology of the Body. I realize that simply finding a woman attractive is not a sin, but I do not know when a sin begins. When it has gone beyond finding a person attractive into lust. I have no idea. The intellectual definitions do nothing for me. I also struggle most terribly with mental images, which come to me over and over and over again, almost constantly throughout my day.

Between these two things, I am not sure that there is more than a few minutes each day when I am not sinning. I have prayed extensively for this, begging God over and over and over again, dozens or more times a day in addition to daily prayers. Most often, I cannot even make it through prayer without suffering this several times. I go to confession as well. I am feeling incredibly desperate, and really have no idea what to do. I don’t even know what it means to look at a woman as one ought to… I have been told to look at people like my sisters, but even with my actual sister, who I have absolutely no incestual temptations to, I feel like I am committing these sins.

If you can help me with some words or advice, that would be wonderful. If you can only pray, please, do so.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I have studied the theology of the body. Intellectual definitions do no good for me. I actually asked my priest - a very good one who has also studied theology of the body - if it is possible to lust without becoming aroused. He said yes, you do not have to become aroused to have lusted.

Here is some more background on me, that I wrote to someone recently:

I agree with your priest, it is possible to lust without becoming aroused. However, to do so, the intent must be definite. There must be a definite desire to engage the mind in fantasies that involve the abuse of a person.

I would venture to say that your experience is not much different from most males. A friend (non-Catholic, good ol’ boy) once told me, “Anytime your not thinking about sex, your mind is wandering”. Obviously, this is not true, but I think it speaks to part of what it means to be a man, and why it can be very difficult to avoid sexual sin.

You’ve probably thought this one out as well, but I’ll suggest it anyway. Occasion of sin is not sin. Purposely staying at the occasion of sin, is.

You obviously have studied morality to some regard. For any sin to be commited, intent must be there to sin. If your true intent is to avoid sin, then the occasion of sin is not sin.

Have you determined your vocation?

Dan

 

[Lazerlike42]

I agree with your priest, it is possible to lust without becoming aroused. However, to do so, the intent must be definite. There must be a definite desire to engage the mind in fantasies that involve the abuse of a person.

I would venture to say that your experience is not much different from most males. A friend (non-Catholic, good ol’ boy) once told me, “Anytime your not thinking about sex, your mind is wandering”. Obviously, this is not true, but I think it speaks to part of what it means to be a man, and why it can be very difficult to avoid sexual sin.

You’ve probably thought this one out as well, but I’ll suggest it anyway. Occasion of sin is not sin. Purposely staying at the occasion of sin, is.

You obviously have studied morality to some regard. For any sin to be commited, intent must be there to sin. If your true intent is to avoid sin, then the occasion of sin is not sin

You don’t have to say “I’m going to sin, now,” though. All you have to do is say, “I’m going to do X,” when X is a sin, whether or not your purpose is to sin or not. Your purpose is to do X, the fact that its a sin doesnt have to be part of your consideration.

Have you determined your vocation?

I may be entering seminary within a year or two.

Dan

 

[James_Carson]

So in what way can one admire a risque picture of a woman or a statue in a museum for instance before its considered lust and is a sin?

In plainer words where is the proverbial line to be drawn.

 

[Flopfoot]

I teld to take a kind of loose view of sin, that a thought unacted upon and that does not change you is not a sin. For me, the times I reckon I’m lusting are when I can’t stop myself staring at a girl even though I know it is rude, the times I take another look at a picture even though I felt it was defiling me the first time, or the times I would touch this girl I was really attracted to (nothing really inappropriate - like stroke her arm, or whatever, though once when I was drunk I stole a kiss… or 3) without real reason to or her permission. I guess also the times I have tried to imagine what a girl would look like in various inappropriate situations also count as lust.

I once read that lust is a vice more than a sin - that it is something that makes you want to sin, but that it may be possible to lust and still choose not to sin. Not sure how accurate this is.

Here is what has given me the best understanding of lust out of anything. From the Baltimore Catechism

Q. 300. What is lust? A. Lust is an excessive desire for the sinful pleasures forbidden by the Sixth Commandment.
Q. 301. What effect has lust on our souls?
A. Lust begets in our souls a distaste for holy things, a perverted conscience, a hatred for God, and it very frequently leads to a complete loss of faith.

Q301 in particular is ueful - for while 300 is a good definition, we can wonder what exactly does excessive mean? But then we discover - if we are really lusting, then it should make us start to hate God (I suppose it would make us angry that God won’t allow us to do what we desire). But on the flip side, if you are not experiencing those effects - distaste for holy things, a perverted conscience, and a hatred for God - then you are not lusting.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Q301 in particular is ueful - for while 300 is a good definition, we can wonder what exactly does excessive mean? But then we discover - if we are really lusting, then it should make us start to hate God (I suppose it would make us angry that God won’t allow us to do what we desire). But on the flip side, if you are not experiencing those effects - distaste for holy things, a perverted conscience, and a hatred for God - then you are not lusting.

I used to live a heck of a life of sin and I thought God was fine an dandy and prayed and read holy things all the time. I don’t think this is necessarily true. Lots of people have a taste for holy things and don’t feel as though they hate God but nevertheless look at pornography or such.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

You don’t have to say “I’m going to sin, now,” though. All you have to do is say, “I’m going to do X,” when X is a sin, whether or not your purpose is to sin or not. Your purpose is to do X, the fact that its a sin doesnt have to be part of your consideration.

Maybe, although your knowledge of X being a sin is required. You cannot sin by doing X if you don’t know that X is a sin. In that regard, this pursuit is a good one, i.e. it is an effort to determine what is sin.

My reasons for studying this are different than yours. Pope John Paul II, and others, have taught that it is possible to lust after one’s wife. Being married, that one really confused me at first. I wondered, “Can I think about bedding her tonight without lusting?” The answer I found was in asking the question, is my desire to abuse her, to use her in a way that is not moral? In almost all cases, the answer is no. I really love my wife and do not want to abuse her in any way. Chris West and PJPII taught that artificial contraception is abuse, and I know that to be true. Fortunately, there has been none of that abuse of each other in our marriage of 22 years.

So, my conclusion is, as long as my thoughts do not bring me to the near occasion of sin (there is no real possibility of sinning in a physical sense, i.e. satisfaction without my wife), that I may safely ‘yearn’ for her during the day, in anticipation of our blessing to each other at night.

Your case is different, as you have no spouse. I have less personal study to offer in this regard. However, I do believe that if you do not have the intent to desire to inappropriately use (abuse) a person, then it is not likely that your thoughts are sin. Conversely, if the desire is to abuse a person in any way (e.g. use them for pre-marital sexual relations), then there is sin.

I may be entering seminary within a year or two.

I offer a prayer that you may discern God’s plan for you.

Dan

 

[Lazerlike42]

Your case is different, as you have no spouse. I have less personal study to offer in this regard. However, I do believe that if you do not have the intent to desire to inappropriately use (abuse) a person, then it is not likely that your thoughts are sin. Conversely, if the desire is to abuse a person in any way (e.g. use them for pre-marital sexual relations), then there is sin.

One doesn’t have to want to do anything with them for it to be a sin, though. One can look at a woman lustfully without wanting to have sex with her, or wanting to gratify oneself physically or anything like that. A person can just want to enjoy looking at the person.

But there’s a right and holy way to enjoy looking at the beauty of a naked woman, too. So what’s the difference?

I’ve been looking for a very, very long time and I haven’t been able to get a single answer to this question that made the distinction beyond “what you want to do” with them.

 

[Flopfoot]

Why are you so sure there’s a wrong way of looking at someone, anyway?

What do you mean by there being different ways of looking at someone?

At a most physical level, you look at someone by facing in their direction and opening your eyes. However, then there is a step where your brain chooses to focus on a small area of what your eyes can see, as far as I know. So far, the only different ways of looking at someone seem to be either focusing on their body as a whole, or focusing on particular features of their body.

At this point, the looking is done. Well - I guess you could also include a factor of how long you look at someone for. Any further than that, and what we mean by a different “way” of looking at someone can only mean any thoughts you have after looking at them.

One thing worth considering is that sexual attraction is natural - God made men in such a way that they would find women attractive. So looking at a woman and thinking that she’s attractive is not by itself sinful. Ah - you already said this, sorry. But, well, I don’t know, I don’t seem to have much else to offer you. Hope you figure it out.

 

[Lazerlike42]

At a most physical level, you look at someone by facing in their direction and opening your eyes. However, then there is a step where your brain chooses to focus on a small area of what your eyes can see, as far as I know. So far, the only different ways of looking at someone seem to be either focusing on their body as a whole, or focusing on particular features of their body.

It’s really not humanly possible to focus on a whole body and not on individual parts. Even our field of vision limits this. We can look at the face, or the torso, or the legs. Our focusing doesnt go from the person to the part, but from the part to the smaller part - from the face to the eyes, for example.

So how then does one appreciate or see the beauty in a person? Does one only look at the face? If the sin of lust is in taking a person and reducing her to her parts, then looking at the face is lust. I am not suggesting that this is the case, but I am showing why it is not as simple as saying lust is when you break a person down to her parts.

So if that is not the problem, then is it in looking at those parts which are sexual? If this is lust, then how can we appreciate the entire person? Aren’t we then rejecting certain parts of the person as unclean, and again looking at them not as a complete person?

So then we must be able to look at individual parts apart from lust. I see a face, I see a chest, etc. What, then, is lust? Does it consist in looking at the sexual parts for too long - focusing on them, in other words? If this is the case, we have the a combination of the two above problems - breaking a person down to her parts and rejecting certain parts of her as dirty - and also a third: how can something that is not a sin become a sin just by doing it too long?

Not to get too theologically deep here, but one might suggest that yes, doing something too long is a sin, such as when we watch TV too long rather than praying or working or doing other things. However, Aquinas would say that this is a sin, but not a mortal sin, insofar as that it affects the means to our ultimate end (in this case recreation) rather than our ultimate end itself. So then this would mean that if the sin is in focusing too long, lust is a sin, but only a venial sin. But we know lust is a mortal sin.

So you can see why I am extremely confused.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

One doesn’t have to want to do anything with them for it to be a sin, though. One can look at a woman lustfully without wanting to have sex with her, or wanting to gratify oneself physically or anything like that. A person can just want to enjoy looking at the person.

But there’s a right and holy way to enjoy looking at the beauty of a naked woman, too. So what’s the difference?

I’ve been looking for a very, very long time and I haven’t been able to get a single answer to this question that made the distinction beyond “what you want to do” with them.

I believe that there is a reason for your moral dillema. I think one of your assumptions/conclusions is in error, leading to this apparent paradox. I believe that your first paragraph is in error. By what basis do you know it to be true. I would like to constructively challenge it.

How can we commit the sin of lust if we;

1. Do not wish to abuse the person.
2. Do not wish to gratify ourselves.

Dan

 

[xmydreamsfadex]

reading these, i am thinking.
Playboy magazine shows nude women, more tasteful than the other magazines, and claim they are showing it as an “art”. would it be morally justified for a man to pick up a copy and look at the women just as he would a statue of a nude woman? say he doesn’t even want to pleasure himself or think any unpure thoughts while looking at the images. i can’t weigh the pros and cons in my head. to many to count. any thoughts on this?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Pope John Paul II offered good teaching on this subject. If the ‘artist’ intended the photographs to arouse, then it is incorrect to intentionally look at them. If the artist was depicting not attempting to portray something arousing, then the beauty can be admired, within reasonable expectations.

Pope John Paul II contrasted the nudity in art in the Vatican with that on billboards outside the vatican.

I have not seen a Playboy in years, but I would guess it has a lot more in common with Rome’s billboards than with Vatican art.

Dan

 

[teachccd]

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.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I believe that there is a reason for your moral dillema. I think one of your assumptions/conclusions is in error, leading to this apparent paradox. I believe that your first paragraph is in error. By what basis do you know it to be true. I would like to constructively challenge it.

How can we commit the sin of lust if we;

1. Do not wish to abuse the person.
2. Do not wish to gratify ourselves.

Dan

I agree, but my problem is that we can gratify ourselves visually, yet we can also just enjoy a beutiful image. There’s a difference, and it’s very hard to see what that difference is.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I agree, but my problem is that we can gratify ourselves visually, yet we can also just enjoy a beutiful image. There’s a difference, and it’s very hard to see what that difference is.

There is something behind what you say that I do not yet understand. Please allow me to ask some questions so that I may better understand.

but my problem is that we can gratify ourselves visually, yet we can also just enjoy a beautiful image.

You may be using the phrase “visual gratification” to mean something different that I would. Are you using it to mean something inherently wrong? Viewing art is visiually gratifying, but not inherently wrong. The only way I can understand this statement is to assume that you mean it as something that is inherently wrong.

If we may go back to a previous statement that I did not understand as well:

One can look at a woman lustfully without wanting to have sex with her, or wanting to gratify oneself physically or anything like that.

I don’t know this to be true. Can you please explain?

Taking liberties by assuming what you MAY be saying, I will build the basis for my understanding of lust to address what I believe may be error in your statements.

Disregarding contemporary definitions of lust, which do not apply to moral discussions, (dictionary.com has the following primary definition: “intense sexual desire or appetite”, which is not a defintion that serves useful purposes when discussing morality) I would define lust as the conscious desire to use, in an illicit manner (abuse).

Using this definition, what is lust and what is not?

A husband or wife yearning for the other in a sexual and/or romantic way is not lust, as long as the desired act is not illicit.

A ‘romantic’ desire to meet a particular female and spend time with her is not lust, as long as the desired act is not illicit. If both persons can be reasonably assumed to be capable of marriage, such a desire is licit. If one of the persons is married to another, then it is illicit, and is lust.

A person considering marriage to another can think about married life with them in all its glory, as long as these thoughts do not turn to abuse, e.g., these thoughts are used to gain physical satisfaction, or any consideration is given to having marital relations before marriage.

An undesired thought or image is not lust. It may be a temptation, but in and of itself, if it is truly undesired, it is not lust.

So what is lust? Intentional thoughts that depict an action, or result in an action, of use that is illicit. Thinking about a woman deliberately to become stimulated, is lust. Intentional yearning for sexual contact with animals or persons of the same sex, is lust. Intentional desires for inappropriate relationships with a married woman or one who has professed vows of celibacy, is lust. For lust to exist, there must be intention, and that intention must be for illicit purpose.

I don’t think the line is hard to see, but only that it can be difficult to stay on the correct side.

Dan