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

[Lazerlike42]

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?

2 and 3. I don’t know how to keep my mind in the right place always yet, but that’s not what I’m asking for. That’s easy to get information on; that’s everywhere. That’s a matte rof prayer and fasting and all that good stuff.

I know the intellectual definitions of lust. They are just not pracitcal enough to apply to what I experience. For example, here is an easy one: when you fantasize about having sex with a particular woman, that is lust. Ok, that’s easy. But after that, it can get very tough, because we also know that women are beautiful and that there is a way to see a woman, even nude, completely without lust. So, the specifics of what constitute lust - of what you have to do in your mind, or in your body, or both - these are not so easy to determine. I’ve been looking, as I’ve said, a while now, and haven’t found much of any help with this.

 

[chevalier]

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?

Yup, that would be illogical. However, we aren’t told to stop once we have recognised the beauty. We can look and look for hours… unless it turns sexual (illicitly) or there’s something otherwise wrong with it. But beauty and sexual attraction are not the same things. The parts of the Catechism about honing the virtue of chastity might be helpful (the section about the VI or IX).

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?

Actually, there have been nude icons of the saints, although Trident outlawed them - at least from churches. I’ve seen some more modern ones, although they weren’t apparently Catholic (in so far as a painting can be Catholic), and I’ve talked to a Catholic person who has painted some that I haven’t seen. I would be inclined to think it’s a risky job and the spiritual benefit is elusive. Besides, it’s one thing if it’s about countless souls figuratively depicted as naked human bodies (defenceless and all), another if it’s concrete persons. For example, notice that even in the periods when nude art was abundant, nude portraits of specific people (obviously not simply models) were still not so common. Seeing a specific person is different from seeing a body - there’s probably more danger to it (e.g. feeling like you’ve now caught the essence of the person and you’ve seen all there is to see etc).

 

[chevalier]

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.

Yes, and even if not, then the looker should stop looking. Making a person subjectively feel objectified is not right, either. Plus, I think the activity of looking at a person in a way that makes him feel objectified, objectifies the person.

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.

Yup. Though I doubt many people would mind if it were face or eyes. With hair or hands, it would take a while and maybe a sign or two of obsession. With certain other parts, it’s practically assumed. I suppose this is connected with the fact that people will tend to think what kind of sexual pleasure they could derive from those specific parts of the person they’re looking at. It’s possible to avoid that, but that rarely happens, I suppose.

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.

Yup. The internal and the external. The Greeks would join the two in the concept of kallokagathia - from kallos k’agathos, beautiful and good. It’s been coming to my mind more and more these days, the concept, though generally, I would have said there were no obvious link. There should be.

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?

You’re right on that one. If we look at the whole person, we cannot exclude anything. The thing with the more private parts is the additional dangers such as awakening sexual desires or reducing the person to the sexual function. It doesn’t mean that the given part is unholy or anything like that. It’s not even true that looking at that part specifically for a while is inherently objectifying - no, but the risk is often hard to avoid. Or one may start looking like an artist but then look like a sinner in a short while. Some literary works from past times would mention “fair breast” about the same way as “fair hair” or talk about “snowwhite breast”. It was a description of a person’s beauty, not a piece of erotic writing. That’s the difference. To continue the previous thought, it would be wrong to exclude certain parts when presenting a whole image of a person, but this doesn’t mean that a sexual expression should be included. It’s like with art. A nude person is not the same as an artistic depiction of a person “expressing his sexuality”.

 

[Diddi]

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.
Dan

Yes and no.

A. I agree that if someone feels as if they have been objectified, it is often true that they have been objectified, but there are many exceptions. A person is more likely to feel objectified by another person if they feel the second person is undesirable (unattractive, insecure, nerdy, social clutz, etc.) If “the thought” of another person objectifying you is repulsive to you, any attention by that person could be interpreted in this way.

B. The reverse side of this statement is totally unreliable. A person may not feel objectified when they are being objectified if:

1. they don’t notice they are being objectified, 2. they are attracted to the person by whom they are objectified, 3. the person who is objectifying them is smooth (experienced) and puts them at ease, 4. they have been groomed by the person who is objectifying them so that they think it is ok, etc.

 

[Diddi]

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.

Living for Christ seems to be an art form sometimes. There cannot be set rules that cover every situation because the circumstances in which behavioral choices are made are so variable.

As an aid, I like the river analogy. If you are crossing a river and your boat sinks, which way do you swim? A. If you swim directly towards the shore, the current will carry you downstream but you may make it to shore. This is what most “good Christians” do even though it is dangerous. B. It is dangerous because, if you start to swim the way you are already going because it is easier, you will slowly turn downstream until you end up swimming mostly downstream. The ride might be fun, but you will drown. People often give in to the currents of what is popular/worldly/fun/easy – and are lost, unless they call for help (contrition) and God sends a rescue (absolution). C. If you cut into the current just the right amount, you will end up moving directly towards the shore. This requires keeping you eye on your Goal that is Christ and is the surest route to salvation, but you should be careful not to take your eyes off your Goal and cut into the current too much. D. If you turn directly into the current or cut into it too much, you will run out of strength and will drown slightly upstream from where you started. This is called scrupulosity and is probably more dangerous than turning downstream because people who are being carried downstream have more energy to realize their danger and call for help.

Now I can answer your question. I don’t know your circumstances so I can only give you two rules. 1. The more constantly you keep your eye on Christ and strive to reach Him; the less you will feel the need for other rules. They are unnecessary. 2. While you try to work this all out, cut slightly into the current and keep calling for help.

 

[chevalier]

A person is more likely to feel objectified by another person if they feel the second person is undesirable (unattractive, insecure, nerdy, social clutz, etc.)

Correct, but that more likely means that the person doesn’t mind being objectified by the desirable people.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

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?

The act of looking does not necessarily objectify, or detract from the whole person, if the look is in proper proportion to the whole person, depending on the role that this person is for us. A fixation on any one part is the problem. For a casual aquaintance, a glance (one second or less, and without sinful intent) is not a fixation. If all we looked at was a person’s eyes (that would be called a stare, and normally results in a woman dropping her look to hide her eyes from the gaze), or a fixation on the hair, would be objectifying the person. In summary, it’s not the look, its the proportion, determined by circumstance, circumstance being the moral role that this person plays in our lives.

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?

Yes, bad can be implied.

Dan

 

[Magicsilence]

YESSS!!

This is a question that needs answering.

But, I think there is a connection here.

I suffer from the same problem in terms of just not knowing where the line is. I think this is the key:

Lazerlike said:

I may be entering seminary within a year or two.

The question is, to what extent may a priest (who ordinarily, does not just ‘lose’ his attraction towards women) look at a woman without lusting? (since a priest has no business even looking at women in a non-lustful way for marriage purposes).

Once we have figured that out, then it may be possible to figure out to what extent those looking to marry may look.

But I don’t think the answer is easy to swallow. I remember reading of a (priest) saint who said that he did:

not know what the women he had met looked like because he had not looked at even their faces (presumably out of fear of lust).

Now, this is a solution. Not looking at women at all would certainly stop lust, but is it possible?

One ‘method’ I have been exploring is to imagine I were married. How would I react to other women with regard to fidelity to my wife? Oddly, this seems to be the most practical method to me. Though I am still a tad young for marriage, this seems to focus the mind very well!

God Bless!

 

[Sixtus]

A Priest once summed it up very nicely for me, he said: to ‘admire the beauty is to stand in awe of what God has created, to lust is to then desire to abuse it’!

When I was a teenager I was troubled greately with lust. The priest told me that there was absolutely nothing wrong with admiring God’s creation, it was only sinful to then want to sully it

That advice served me well, it was easy to stand and admire, it was equally as easy not to consent to the thought pattern that followed.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I suffer from the same problem in terms of just not knowing where the line is.

Christopher West, who has studied this question a LOT, says that a man’s journey towards purity influences what he may look at without lusting. “To the pure of heart, all things are pure. To the impure of heart, all things are impure.” He explains that the best response for some in the presence of a beautiful woman may be to look away, and the best response for others may be to admire and respect God’s handiwork. It depends on how far along the journey you are.

Dan

 

[CSN]

Unh, I read about half this string before deciding to post. Maybe someone already said it, but…

I am 100% not gay, but if I see a good looking man, I will also look at him for a while. Maybe that’s another sin → jealosy or envy. Anyway, I figure if I can look at a man and not have any sexual feeling, but still think “That’s an exceptionally handsome guy”, then the same can apply to women to some degree.

Has anyone else ever thought this?

Again, 100% not gay…

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Unh, I read about half this string before deciding to post. Maybe someone already said it, but…

I am 100% not gay, but if I see a good looking man, I will also look at him for a while. Maybe that’s another sin → jealosy or envy. Anyway, I figure if I can look at a man and not have any sexual feeling, but still think “That’s an exceptionally handsome guy”, then the same can apply to women to some degree.

Has anyone else ever thought this?

Again, 100% not gay…

People can think about nude sculptures of men in the same way as you describe looking at a handsome man. There is the famous David sculpture, admired for its beautiful representation of the human form. Here in Kansas City, at the Nelson Adkins Museum of Art, there are several, very detailed, depictions of the male nude form.

These represent the beauty of God’s handiwork. Much like looking at the nude female form, we have to decide what of God’s beautiful handiwork we can admire without lusting, or envying. If the intention of the artists is to show the beauty, not to make one lust, then it is OK to admire, keeping a rein on any thoughts of sin.

For the specific case you describe, if you felt threatened or inadequate while looking at the handsome guy, then there may be some envy at play. If you felt happy for him, then it would seem to be just good ol’ fashioned admiration, a noble sentiment.

I think women do this a lot more than guys do, (admire each other’s beauty) by the way. I consider myself the typical guy, and I don’t have much of natural sense of what makes a guy handsome. But women seem to have a pretty keen awareness of what makes a woman beautiful.

Dan

 

[Sixtus]

I must confess I have never looked at a bloke and thought ‘what a pretty person’!

But I often look at women and thank God for the wonders of His creation.