Right to have an outlet for natural sexual drive

[mercyfalling]

The average argument goes like this: men have a natural drive for sex, they therefore have the right to do something to get it, therefore to tell them to “limit” themselves to a wife is restrictive… therefore they have the right to play with other women for the sake of satisfying themselves.

So… women are there to be used as an outlet for your sex drive? Is that what women are for? You have the right to pleasure, therefore you justify your “right” to use another person for that end. Is the woman not a person in her own right, made for something other than to relieve your physical tension? Did it ever occur to any man out there that maybe women are here for soemthing more than that?

What is a sex drive anyway? The drive to please oneself, or the power to give your love away to another? If you must satisfy your sex drive - use it! Use it to love. But do not ever deceive yourself that just because a woman responds to you it’s because she wants to be the outlet for your passions. She wants your love. The right to please oneself should not translate into the right to use someone for your own sake.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

There’s a psychological answer to that. It’s not necessarily an outlet, more like a “calling”… as weird as that sounds. So, here goes:

The evolutionary explanation: Men have that instinct to spread their genes through other females… obviously, it’s a natural selection sort of thing.

Assuming you don’t believe in natural selection, I’ll give you the religious answer: We’re only human, therefore, we are all sinners. Men just can’t handle the pain like us women can.

That was actually quite brief, so I am very sorry if that didn’t help.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[mercyfalling]

Okay… so if men are “called” to use women, then that would mean that women are “called” to be used. And people believe arguments like these? Why? Because some scientist came up with an unprovable theory to explain away sin?

Actually, evolutionarily speaking, women and children without a male to protect them and feed them tended to die off quickly, so for procreation to reach it’s fullest potential the males would actually have to be “called” to be the protectors and providers of the women and children. Even if you were to argue for polygamy - a man providing for many women - the odds are that the average man just couldn’t actually feed and protect that many mouths at once. Your argument doesn’t make logical sense, speaking either morally or scientifically.

The truth is that the average man does tend to get married, and does sense a call to provide and protect. The happiest people group are married men, and though infidelity abounds, statistics show that the majority of married man do not commit adultery. So, one could very easily argue the opposite point: in spite of sin nature, the natural calling of man to love, to protect, and to provide comes out on top.

But the bottom line is that since men are not irrational animals, they must have a sense of the personal element of having relations with other females. Most women can’t be taken with a come-on like, “I have a natural sex drive, you’re pretty, may I experience pleasure with your body tonight?” Some women are okay with that, but not most. For the man who feels the need to spread his “oats” around, let him stick with the women who agree that they were created to be used as fertile soil for men’s oats.

In spite of it all, I don’t know of a single (heterosexual) man who would prefer to never be loved by a woman. If he wants to experience love, he has to make a choice - to love a woman or to use her. The problem is that many men think they can use women until they find one to love, and that then they can change years of habits and thoughts and be able to love that woman correctly.

Evidence shows that sexual relations create all sorts of bonding hormones that “glue” a couple together emotionally and mentally, as well as physically. The “glue”, those hormones, diminish the more partners a person experiences. Outside of a monogamous relationship, the body loses the ability to create those bonding hormones any more. The natural design of the sex drive is to unite, not to spread oneself around. This is scientifically proven to be true.

For some more science: it has been proven to be true that men who practice chastity in the years when they minds are forming (ie: youth, and especially adolescence) find it fairly simple to practice chastity in their adult years (and conversely, those who don’t, don’t). It is further proven to be true that married men who experience a vitally intimate (and faithful) relationship with their wife have the highest level of sexual satisfaction. And it has also been proven that men who seek most to satisfy their sex drive by spreading themselves around are categorized as having an addiction, and that addicted people are very much not the happiest and most satisfied people out there. And finally, it is a mainstay of the psychological field that men (and women, of course) who continue to seek sexual satisfaction by spreading themselves around do so because they feel a sense of disconnection and a lack of love, and inner emptiness and craving that can never be filled. Creating a true sense of connection, bonding, and love with another individual, and mostly with God, is a proven solution for those with sex addictions. If it was really all about sex, then more sex would equal more happiness. But it doesn’t. But more love does equal more happiness.

Believe it or not, love actually makes people happy. And the sex drive was designed as a means of securing a lasting love relationship with others. Let’s just be honest about it.

 

[bilop]

There is no such “right”. The inclination to sin (e.g. commit adultery) is a fact of our fallen nature (concupisence) derived from original sin.

God Bless

 

[TLM08]

The average argument goes like this: men have a natural drive for sex, they therefore have the right to do something to get it, therefore to tell them to “limit” themselves to a wife is restrictive… therefore they have the right to play with other women for the sake of satisfying themselves.

So… women are there to be used as an outlet for your sex drive? Is that what women are for? You have the right to pleasure, therefore you justify your “right” to use another person for that end. Is the woman not a person in her own right, made for something other than to relieve your physical tension? Did it ever occur to any man out there that maybe women are here for soemthing more than that?

What is a sex drive anyway? The drive to please oneself, or the power to give your love away to another? If you must satisfy your sex drive - use it! Use it to love. But do not ever deceive yourself that just because a woman responds to you it’s because she wants to be the outlet for your passions. She wants your love. The right to please oneself should not translate into the right to use someone for your own sake.

Men have a biological need for release. There are extremely complicated physiological, psychological, hormonal and neurological forces at work behind this. The sexual nature of men is truly frightening…even to us. Most of us are not proud of some of the darker aspects of our natures. Us guys need civilizing in order to be good husbands sometimes. In harsher cultures in primitive times, the aggressive nature of men allowed us to protect our families from wild animals and maurauding enemies.

Ladies, if you only had a clue as to what it is like for us guys. Good men learn to control their sexual nature. Controlling ourselves is the only way we will ever be able to have the love of one woman as God intended.

Women are God’s most prescious gift to mankind. There is nothing more beautiful to the male eye than the curves of her form, the shape of her face, the light’s reflection or even the scent of her hair. There’s little more soothing to his savage nature than her voice. Without the love of one woman and the family she can give him, there isn’t really much worth living for… in this world anyway. The only thing greater would to be in the company of God himself. The fact that you ladies are an outlet for our passions is secondary to the incredible gifts that you bring otherwise.

In a perfect world, you ladies will enjoy the strength of the masculine embrace as an outlet for *your *passions as well.

Thank God for woman.

 

[Ailina]

Ladies, if you only had a clue as to what it is like for us guys. Good men learn to control their sexual nature. Controlling ourselves is the only way we will ever be able to have the love of one woman as God intended.

You forget one thing: women have sex drives too, that can also be hard to control! It wasn’t that long ago that women were considered the weaker sex in all senses, including sexual! Even the risk of pregnancy doesn’t always stop a woman from engaging.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, evolutionarily speaking, women and children without a male to protect them and feed them tended to die off quickly, so for procreation to reach it’s fullest potential the males would actually have to be “called” to be the protectors and providers of the women and children. Even if you were to argue for polygamy - a man providing for many women - the odds are that the average man just couldn’t actually feed and protect that many mouths at once. Your argument doesn’t make logical sense, speaking either morally or scientifically.

Very good. I’d add, as a sidenote, that even in societies like the Middle East today, where polygamy is culturally and legally permissible, the vast vast majority of men STILL only have one wife! And I’ve heard Muslim men, questioned on the issue of polygamy, simply say ‘to support one wife is work enough, why would you want more!’

 

[mercyfalling]

Women are God’s most prescious gift to mankind. There is nothing more beautiful to the male eye than the curves of her form, the shape of her face, the light’s reflection or even the scent of her hair. There’s little more soothing to his savage nature than her voice. Without the love of one woman and the family she can give him, there isn’t really much worth living for… in this world anyway. The only thing greater would to be in the company of God himself. The fact that you ladies are an outlet for our passions is secondary to the incredible gifts that you bring otherwise. … Thank God for woman.

Thank you for your respectfully and carerfully written response. Believe me, a man’s “drive” is probably my favorite thing on earth. There’s a raw power and strength in men that likewise holds us ladies under a spell. I could echo… Thank God for man!!!

The problem is there’s a persistent lie that keeps the love of a man and a woman from bearing the fruition and completion that God intended, and it’s the lie that bothers me so much (not men’s powerful sex drive). Believe me, lust NEVER comes from too high of an appreciation and enjoyment of women, nor does it stem primarily from the biology of a man’s body. Arousal, excitement, appreciation are all great things, even if they sometimes miss their mark (in my oppinion).

Here’s my husband’s comments on the subject… the problem is that men really DON’T think women are as beautiful as all that, or they wouldn’t treat women that way. If you really believe something is beautiful, you don’t treat it like trash. You’re not going to use (or misuse for your own selfish needs) something that you prize, something of inestimable worth.

A woman who has been on the receiving end of lust NEVER feels beautiful, valuable, honored, at least not for more than a moment, and usually not even that long. Lust and love are polar opposites, and the sex drive will go in either the one direction or the other (it can bounce back and forth, but not stem from both forces equally). The more lust, the less love; the more love, the less lust. And that’s a simple fact, a core element of Catholic doctrine. And lust stems from a disordered WILL, not just a disordered body. Jesus said so in the Bible, but it’s also in the Catechism and the Theology of the Body.

However, the biggest proof is that not every hot-blooded man feels pulled in several directions at once. Not every man with a powerful drive feels driven away from the one woman he shares an intimate love with (or hopes to be abe to love, if currently unmarried). Many are horrified at the thought that many men have polygamous attachments and can’t understand them, though their testosterone is just as high as the next man’s.

What’s the difference? It’s not in the level of control, it’s in the level of finding what one is longing for. Lust simply doesn’t satisfy. A man is much like Adam… looking until he finds what he’s looking for. I happen to know of several men who are more happy and satisfied in their sexual relationship than they ever imagined and could not lust even if they wanted to. They could become aroused, but they couldn’t desire what arouses… their heart and body are already captured. This is not just my wishful thinking… this is my husband, this is my best friend’s husband, this is the husbands of other women at my church. These are real, hot-blooded men who have found what they were looking for. These are men who used to feel unrest, who used to be disatisfied, whose eyes used to wander. Once they discovered the secret, they were at peace.

Love satisfies.

 

[TLM08]

Thank you for your respectfully and carerfully written response. Believe me, a man’s “drive” is probably my favorite thing on earth. There’s a raw power and strength in men that likewise holds us ladies under a spell. I could echo… Thank God for man!!!

The problem is there’s a persistent lie that keeps the love of a man and a woman from bearing the fruition and completion that God intended, and it’s the lie that bothers me so much (not men’s powerful sex drive). Believe me, lust NEVER comes from too high of an appreciation and enjoyment of women, nor does it stem primarily from the biology of a man’s body. Arousal, excitement, appreciation are all great things, even if they sometimes miss their mark (in my oppinion).

Here’s my husband’s comments on the subject… the problem is that men really DON’T think women are as beautiful as all that, or they wouldn’t treat women that way. If you really believe something is beautiful, you don’t treat it like trash. You’re not going to use (or misuse for your own selfish needs) something that you prize, something of inestimable worth.

A woman who has been on the receiving end of lust NEVER feels beautiful, valuable, honored, at least not for more than a moment, and usually not even that long. Lust and love are polar opposites, and the sex drive will go in either the one direction or the other (it can bounce back and forth, but not stem from both forces equally). The more lust, the less love; the more love, the less lust. And that’s a simple fact, a core element of Catholic doctrine. And lust stems from a disordered WILL, not just a disordered body. Jesus said so in the Bible, but it’s also in the Catechism and the Theology of the Body.

However, the biggest proof is that not every hot-blooded man feels pulled in several directions at once. Not every man with a powerful drive feels driven away from the one woman he shares an intimate love with (or hopes to be abe to love, if currently unmarried). Many are horrified at the thought that many men have polygamous attachments and can’t understand them, though their testosterone is just as high as the next man’s.

What’s the difference? It’s not in the level of control, it’s in the level of finding what one is longing for. Lust simply doesn’t satisfy. A man is much like Adam… looking until he finds what he’s looking for. I happen to know of several men who are more happy and satisfied in their sexual relationship than they ever imagined and could not lust even if they wanted to. They could become aroused, but they couldn’t desire what arouses… their heart and body are already captured. This is not just my wishful thinking… this is my husband, this is my best friend’s husband, this is the husbands of other women at my church. These are real, hot-blooded men who have found what they were looking for. These are men who used to feel unrest, who used to be disatisfied, whose eyes used to wander. Once they discovered the secret, they were at peace.

Love satisfies.

Good post.

The bottom line is that human beings are not by nature monogamous creatures. Monogamy is a product of culture and religion. As children of God, I believe we are called to love and family. Momogamy is the only way to achieve that.

“Lust” is a very misused and overused term especially here in these forums. Many here think of all sexual arousal as “lust”… that is sad. To me, “lust” is sexual excitement in the abscence of affection… Pornography comes to mind here.

The single best thing a woman can recognize about her husband is that he DOES have this base drive. The typical honest, church going, faithful to his wife 50 year old man has sexual thoughts almost daily about other women. Also, thanks to the internet and loose women everywhere, there is also ample opportunity to act upon these temptations too. Yet the good man remains faithful to his wife, family and God.

None of us even have a “right” to our next bite of food or our next breath of air yet God provides these for us. The incredible allure and pleasure of sexuality was God’s idea in the first place. It’s obvious that through history us human beings have mistreated this gift. Abortion, rape and even hardcore pornography are obvious proof of that. But the truth is, I doubt that even the church has begun to scratch the surface on understanding human sexuality.

Love is what we all long for, but it doesn’t satisfy. Man by nature is never satisfied. There will always be some level of temptation to deal with. It is love combined with self control, fidelity, patience, forgiveness, gratitude and a heart that is constantly seeking God that brings peace.

 

[bilop]

Good post.
The bottom line is that human beings are not by nature monogamous creatures. Monogamy is a product of culture and religion. As children of God, I believe we are called to love and family. Momogamy is the only way to achieve that.

I would disagree with this. Humans are by their nature (pre Fall) monogamous.

It is only original sin and concupisence that gives the inclination to unfaithfullness; just like it gives the inclination to steal, lie, murder, etc. All sin, and inclination to sin comes from the same place.

Sexual temptations are no more natural than the temptations to steal or to kill. And. sexual sins are no more “natural” or excusable than other sins.

Of course, temptation is not sin. And all people, no matter how holy face temptation to sin. The moral life consists of resisting the temptations.

God Bless

 

[chevalier]

The average argument goes like this: men have a natural drive for sex, they therefore have the right to do something to get it, therefore to tell them to “limit” themselves to a wife is restrictive… therefore they have the right to play with other women for the sake of satisfying themselves.

Men do not have the right to do something about the drive for sex, apart from marying. However, marrying in order to use someone for sex is a in. Men do not have any right to play with other women. Or any women if they’re not married.

So… women are there to be used as an outlet for your sex drive? Is that what women are for? You have the right to pleasure, therefore you justify your “right” to use another person for that end. Is the woman not a person in her own right, made for something other than to relieve your physical tension? Did it ever occur to any man out there that maybe women are here for soemthing more than that?

No person may be used as a tool, a mere object, i.e. one that is subject to use and depletion. It is wrong to treat any woman that way, wife or not.

But do not ever deceive yourself that just because a woman responds to you it’s because she wants to be the outlet for your passions. She wants your love.

Agreed. In the end, women want love. However, when women act sexually in less than virtuous ways, that’s not because they’re good and men are bad, but it’s because both genders have a sex drive and both genders are capable of using each other as an outlet.

The right to please oneself should not translate into the right to use someone for your own sake.

It does not and it would help if you would explain the reason of your very vocal post. There is no such right as a right to please oneself. The only rightful pleasure comes from a unitive and procreative act of two people, in a way that respects the dignity of each.

 

[TLM08]

Sexual temptations are no more natural than the temptations to steal or to kill. And. sexual sins are no more “natural” or excusable than other sins.

If an enemy is threatening my family, I will kill him… Those who stole baby formula, diapers, water, food first aid supplies and medicine from stores in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina did not sin either. A single man and woman are the lone survivors on an isolated island… after months without rescue, incredibly deep love develops and they begin living as husband and wife. Would God condemn any of these people?

Food for thought my friend.

 

[bilop]

If an enemy is threatening my family, I will kill him… Those who stole baby formula, diapers, water, food first aid supplies and medicine from stores in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina did not sin either. A single man and woman are the lone survivors on an isolated island… after months without rescue, incredibly deep love develops and they begin living as husband and wife. Would God condemn any of these people?

Food for thought my friend.

Violence in self-defense is not a sin.

Stealing in a case of true necessity is not a sin, though they should compensate the store after the fact.

If a priest is truly unavailable, a couple can contract the sacrament of marriage themselves. So, no sin, but they are truly married, and can’t just separate later if they are rescued.

So, none of your examples has anything to do with the temptation to adultery (or any other sin).

God Bless

 

[SomeSunnyDay]

This is not just my wishful thinking… this is my husband, this is my best friend’s husband, this is the husbands of other women at my church. These are real, hot-blooded men who have found what they were looking for. These are men who used to feel unrest, who used to be disatisfied, whose eyes used to wander. Once they discovered the secret, they were at peace.

Wow! As a single girl, let me tell you that’s the guy we all hope to find someday and marry. They’re not easy to find out there in the singles market these days - seems like the really good guys, like the ones you describe above, are already taken.

The search can be frustrating sometimes!

Thanks for your wonderful posts on this topic. Good read!

 

[chevalier]

Not to divert the topic, but all the time I hear men asking where those women are and women asking where those men are.

 

[Serap]

Wow! As a single girl, let me tell you that’s the guy we all hope to find someday and marry. They’re not easy to find out there in the singles market these days - seems like the really good guys, like the ones you describe above, are already taken.

The search can be frustrating sometimes!

Thanks for your wonderful posts on this topic. Good read!

I could have written your post 10 years ago!!! Good men are very difficult to find. There are very few men with values. When you find one, you gotta reel him in

When I was single, I dated different men. Most of them didn’t want anything to do with me after a few weeks when they realized that I was not going to be physical with them without getting to know them first. It was so depressing when they would stop calling and I knew that all they wanted was sex. It was the quickest way to weed them out, but so disappointing. I hated dating.

Then my husband came along. It was New Year’s Eve; we were both drunk and having a lot of fun at my friend’s party. My husband’s friend ended up leaving him stranded at this party. We tried to find a ride, but there were no taxis available, the subway wasn’t running anymore and it was 3:00 a.m., so we gave up and he ended up crashing at my apartment for the night (on my couch of course ) as I lived around the corner.

We had breakfast together on New Year’s Day (sober ) and we hit it off. We fell in-love pretty much right away. We didn’t realize it until about 6 months later, but we were very much in love from day one. We were both very cautious from being hurt by other people and we took it very slow physically and emotionally. We were like best friends hanging out with a physical attraction for eachother.

Before that night, every NYE party had been so depressing. It seemed like every guy was looking for a woman to have sex with to bring in the new year.

Who would have thought I’d meet my husband at a New Year’s Eve party in a very tipsy state…

 

[SomeSunnyDay]

What a wonderful story! And it just goes it show ya, you always meet the love of your life in the time and place where you least expect it - and when you’re least prepared!

 

[Arclight]

The average argument goes like this: men have a natural drive for sex, they therefore have the right to do something to get it, therefore to tell them to “limit” themselves to a wife is restrictive… therefore they have the right to play with other women for the sake of satisfying themselves…

That’s a strawman caricature. As for being average (do you mean common?} I’ve never heard any man state it that way, especially as a “right”.