Thinking about sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlindSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BlindSheep

Guest
At what point does thinking about sex become sinful for single men & women? Is it venial, or mortal? Is it always wrong to think of having sex with someone? Or only if it’s graphic, or if you get aroused, or what? What about if you are considering marriage? Engaged?
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
At what point does thinking about sex become sinful for single men & women? Is it venial, or mortal? Is it always wrong to think of having sex with someone? Or only if it’s graphic, or if you get aroused, or what? What about if you are considering marriage? Engaged?
I’ve asked the same question of my very orthodox confessor. His answer was that thinking of sex becomes sinful when you start to enjoy it.

Regarding thinking of having sex with someone in particular, now you are getting into the area of “lusting in your heart,” which our Lord spoke strongly against. (i.e., “I would if I could.”) This can be a mortal sin if done with sufficient knowledge and deliberate consent.

If you are having trouble discerning whether in a particular instance you have committed a mortal sin,** I would very strongly urge you to talk to an orthodox (small o) Catholic priest inside or outside of confession and ask for guidance**. Whatever you do, do not ask “Was such-and-such thing I did a mortal sin?” of people in this forum. You will get conflicting and often wrong answers that could lead you down a path of scrupulosity (which happened to me) or to a lax conscience, which is even worse. Your best bet is to ask someone trained in moral theology whose advice you trust, namely, a good solid priest.

At the very least, thinking of sexual relations is extremely imprudent for single people and must be avoided. Prayer has been the best remedy in my case. Perhaps it would work for you too.

EDIT: Imagining yourself having sex falls under “thoughts of impurity,” which can be grave matter. Again, talk to a priest.
 
Thinking about sex objectively such as thinking about it theologically and what its spiritual meaning is, is not sinful.

Daydreaming about sex, which I would say usually stems from bordom and loneliness and eventually leads to pleasure is a grave offense.

What makes any grave offense mortal is full consent of the will and adequate knowledge and time to be able to avoid it. For me, I get into iffy areas only when I start waking up during dreams with sexual content. So as my mind was already in the dream in an unconscious state, there was no consent of my will, but at the point where I am able to will myself to stop, that is the point where I can sin. Discerning whether I had full or partial consent becomes confusing, so as my confessor said, when in doubt, confess it anyway.

I do not have unconscious dreams involving sex that often and usually dreams are related to what you put before your eyes during the day. Interestingly enough, for me the temptation came primarily from my anxiety with sex and wondering if I’d be able to consumate my marriage without freaking out and having a panic attack. The temptation for me was to find something good in it and learning to have my sexuality healed without leading myself into the direction of lust was very difficult.

I will say that one time I became aware that my mind was going into the area of sex. I don’t remember if I was waking up or not, but I turned to God and prayed and I had this more of theological vision of connecting the intamacy of God and being a temple of the Holy Spirit that helped me to understand the beauty God has placed in sex and how it reflects our relationship with Him. It made me joyous to be a woman and I have sense found that a lot of what I discovered in that vision is covered in JP II’s the Theology of the Body.

For me, I find sex ugly when it becomes the lustful godless act so many people particpate in, and I will say I have difficulty not feeling outright discust and even having my womanhood violated by man’s acts of masterbation. I would hate to have my body simply as an outlet for him to express his lustful heart through.

This is not to say that my heart is not touched by lust. But still, I do believe I have been granted a sensitive heart to lust that recoils at the vice even when I am tempted to embrace it. I have no trouble seeing the ugliness of the sin and thus truly hating the sin. I don’t struggle with seeing what’s wrong with it as others may.
 
Several priests when I was confessing have stated that the impure thoughts would go away or stop 15 minutes after the nails are hammered into my coffin.

One priest who is a psychologist said that if it really bothered me he could arrange to have me medicated (tranquilized).

These impure thoughts are normal.

What is improper is to act on them or to deliberately encourage them. Any literature or objects that bring these thoughts on, should be thrown away. Could be magazines, books or the internet. Or bars or the mall or strip joints or clubs. *

One priest, in a men only retreat, said that if you’re single, you are allowed to do nothing. If you are married, then with your spouse, you can do anything… presumably he meant consensual and all those other caveats.

But if you think it’s going to stop… it’s not and it is unreasonable to think it will stop. However, the important thing is to not spend any time or money going after or seeking visual, auditory, kinesthetic, gustatory, olfactory mental or tactile experiences that could be sexually stimulating.

Dancing may be a problem for some people and not for others. Ditto… drinking. Dating some women may create a problem … or it may not. Just as some discussions of philosophical issues may create a problem… or it may not.

I was at an industrial trade show some years ago and got invited to a hospitality suite. It was strange… because all of the “hosts” were formally dressed in black suits… the guests were casual. Reminded me of the reception in the movie “Rosemary’s Baby”… and then I saw the owner of the company who was earnestly in the process of attempting to seduce a young guest. I prayed to the Holy Spirit … if I had had a bottle of holy water I would have sprayed it on them.

Further, what is stimulating for some people may not be stimulating for others… and vice-versa. Each of us is individual… so being judgmental for someone else is also inappropriate.

But I’m rambling.*
 
Ok, I think I get it, but I’m still not sure about something; is it wrong for a woman who is dating a man, and considering marriage, to think about the hypothetical sex they would have after marriage (in the context of “how would I feel about sex with this particular man”?)
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Ok, I think I get it, but I’m still not sure about something; is it wrong for a woman who is dating a man, and considering marriage, to think about the hypothetical sex they would have after marriage (in the context of “how would I feel about sex with this particular man”?)
Yes and No. The situation you described is not one situation. You can consider whether or not you would feel comfortable with this man in the sexual embrace, but I would say that engaging in wedding night fantasies of your mind has the a similar binding effect to engaging in it though not as intense. In fact, I found that when I daydreamed about the slightest intamacy for “after we’re married” the temptation to do the act before we were married was far stronger. And the truth of the matter is that you have no idea what it’ll be like to be with this man nor are you married until you’re married.

I have also found that refraining from daydreaming about situations that have not actually occured leads to infatuation and an illusion of who the real person is. It actually inhibits you from getting to know someone. I had developed this crush a couple of years ago on a very attractive and virteous young man, but my real interaction with him was limited. I ended up getting rejected and it brought up some other issues I had to the point that I sought spiritual direction. The thing was I hated crushes. They felt like a form of depression to me, where only being with the person or daydreaming about them gave me relief. Thus I had trouble resisting the temptation to give into even general daydreams about any romantic situation with the person even with the avoidence of sex, though I would say that the thoughts often eventually lead you to thoughts of sexual intamacy.

My spiritual director adviced me to focus myself on reality. If I am to think of the person, think of real situations that have already occured. It can actually help you remember the things that make you fall in love with a person, if you do and you learn to love the true person if the relationship develops that far.

But this is merely good advice. Harboring sexual daydreams, regardless of if they are with some imaginary person or imaginary husband or a real person you are not married to are sinful. Remember that Christ said that a man who even looks at a woman with a lustful eye has already committed the act of impurity with her in his heart.

As for frusteration over being able to fulfill this, do remember that God’s standards are unreachable for us to acheive. We cannot save ourselves. That’s why we have a savior. We sin everyday. Also be aware that just because a matter is grave doesn’t mean it was mortal. Be aware of where you are giving your consent of will to sins of the mind and make frequent confessions. Become humble enough to accept your sinfulness and to learn to distinguish your sin from the beautiful woman God has created in you. You don’t have to earn God’s love or assert yourself to proove to Him that you are beautiful. He knows you in ways you don’t know yourself. He merely wants to save you and for that you need to particpate with his grace. Don’t be discouraged. 👍
 
40.png
MrIrish:
Whatever you do, do not ask “Was such-and-such thing I did a mortal sin?” of people in this forum. You will get conflicting and often wrong answers that could lead you down a path of scrupulosity (which happened to me) or to a lax conscience, which is even worse. Your best bet is to ask someone trained in moral theology whose advice you trust, namely, a good solid priest.
On that, I will say that I have gone to very orthodox priests for confession and received such vague advice, it was of little help at all. We need to understand that we need to form our own consciences and the Church is to give us the guidelines. The priest in a confessional can at the very most only speculate as to whether you engaged in a mortal sin. What is sure is that he can tell you what actions are grave actions.

Second of all, being overscrupolous deals with looking for sin where there is no sin. It is a form of a doubting conscience, an uncertain and ill-informed one. Having strict rules of guidelines is not the same as being scrouplous.

Therefore, with all advice, take the advice, but in the end it should be used to form your understanding and thus your conscience so that you can discern these things on your own. And as my priest said, in situations where you are uncertain of whether you committed mortal, venial or no sin, confess it anyway. Always seek a deeper understanding and clarity and pray to God for your conscience to be well formed.

I had a friend whose conscience was so full of self doubt that she’d rely on her boyfriend and then come to me for advice but then continue to question it and never come to a decision based on her own conscience. She lost her ability to discern on her own which was a terribly sad thing. Though I gave her strict advice, I also told her that I worried about her inability to discern between sin and what was not sin. I can only give you advice based on my own conscience and my experience with the particular temptations that have plagued me.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Ok, I think I get it, but I’m still not sure about something; is it wrong for a woman who is dating a man, and considering marriage, to think about the hypothetical sex they would have after marriage (in the context of “how would I feel about sex with this particular man”?)
For years I took classes at a Catholic college leading up to a MS in Pastoral Counseling. A number of the classes dealt with sex. As did some of the research papers. One day I asked the department head, a very senior priest, about the mental stimulation caused by all that “sex exposure” - some of it was pretty strange stuff. He said it was normal… you “wonder” what it might be like.

Eventually, it (the “wonder”) gets replaced by other issues and other concerns … [e.g., gotta get two papers done by a due date; and what will I do if the research material isn’t available on time; and if it snows where will I park, and etc. ]

99% of it goes in one ear and out the other. It pops up from time to time. But as long as I don’t put any time, money or effort into reactivating it and as long as I don’t act on it “date” or pay someone for sex or engage in any actual acts]… just let it fade out as we displace the " questionable thoughts" with everyday concerns.
 
40.png
the-3rd-parent:
.

But this is merely good advice. Harboring sexual daydreams, regardless of if they are with some imaginary person or imaginary husband or a real person you are not married to are sinful. Remember that Christ said that a man who even looks at a woman with a lustful eye has already committed the act of impurity with her in his heart.

👍
and what about daydreams about your husband or wife? I’ve heard it said agagin and again that thinking about sex in this situation is still objectifying the other. My question, if moral sex is a purely platonic gesture, it its morally neutral to be attracted to your spouse physically - but never ok to think about that because it’s objectifying - then how does one become aroused, exactly, during the act?
 
When I asked this question of my priest, he said “thinking about sex is normal. Obsessing about it is a problem” We are all human and thus prone to human feelings.After all, if someone wasn’t thinking about sex, none of us would be here.
~ Kathy ~
 
40.png
Katie1723:
When I asked this question of my priest, he said “thinking about sex is normal. Obsessing about it is a problem” We are all human and thus prone to human feelings.After all, if someone wasn’t thinking about sex, none of us would be here.

~ Kathy ~
Good post!

Hmmmm is this thread sinful??? :hmmm:

😛
 
40.png
cynic:
and what about daydreams about your husband or wife? I’ve heard it said agagin and again that thinking about sex in this situation is still objectifying the other. My question, if moral sex is a purely platonic gesture,
How do you get that not daydreaming about someone sexually makes the relationship platonic? Moral sex is not a platonic gesture. Moral sex is a chaste action. You don’t sex the person. You both engage in the act with each other. You have sex together, and it is only sex when there are two. Thus the two not only unit as one flesh but act as one in a way that sexual expression without that other individual is not sex but masturbation, which is sinful.
40.png
cynic:
it its morally neutral to be attracted to your spouse physically - but never ok to think about that because it’s objectifying
I wouldn’t call it morally neutral. It is good to be attracted to your spouse. I’d say its even morally good, though it goes beyond morality.

What is not ok is using the other person as a masturbation tool, either their image through what could be called mental masturbation (which is harboring sexual thoughts but not touching oneself) or through using that person’s image in a situation where you are alone and therefore unable to give yourself completely to the other since at that moment the other is not there. It then becomes an action of lust, of self fulfillment, which sex should never be about.
40.png
cynic:
  • then how does one become aroused, exactly, during the act?
Why does one need to objectify the person in order to become aroused? If you must think of sex as “I want to enjoy sexual pleasure” instead of “I love my spouse so much I want to express our unity and give myself to her completely”, than you’ve got a problem.
 
40.png
the-3rd-parent:
How do you get that not daydreaming about someone sexually makes the relationship platonic? Moral sex is not a platonic gesture. Moral sex is a chaste action. You don’t sex the person. You both engage in the act with each other. You have sex together, and it is only sex when there are two. Thus the two not only unit as one flesh but act as one in a way that sexual expression without that other individual is not sex but masturbation, which is sinful.

I wouldn’t call it morally neutral. It is good to be attracted to your spouse. I’d say its even morally good, though it goes beyond morality.

What is not ok is using the other person as a masturbation tool, either their image through what could be called mental masturbation (which is harboring sexual thoughts but not touching oneself) or through using that person’s image in a situation where you are alone and therefore unable to give yourself completely to the other since at that moment the other is not there. It then becomes an action of lust, of self fulfillment, which sex should never be about.

Why does one need to objectify the person in order to become aroused? If you must think of sex as “I want to enjoy sexual pleasure” instead of “I love my spouse so much I want to express our unity and give myself to her completely”, than you’ve got a problem.
the problem is that you’re not living in reality, indeed your description of sex in entirely platonic. Men are attracted to women physically, whithout that there would be no arousal. I woldn’t be attracted to a women who, for argument sake, looked like a man. Should I?

I would say that “I love my spouse so much I want to express our unity and give myself to her completely” is also an act of self fullfillment. So what if you aren’t able to ‘give yourself’ - these kind of ascetic statements are examples of situational morality - the exact the same feelings are moral in one set of circumstances, but immoral in another. That doesn’t make sense - either a thought/urge is lustful or it isn’t - and if it isn’t who cares if your aren’t in the act? and if your can’t have self fullfillment then the otthe isn’t allowed to recieve fullfillment from you, or you from them. Oh great, what a party pooper attitude, godness knows what people who think this way actually do on their wedding nights.
 
40.png
cynic:
I would say that “I love my spouse so much I want to express our unity and give myself to her completely” is also an act of self fullfillment. So what if you aren’t able to ‘give yourself’ - these kind of ascetic statements are examples of situational morality - the exact the same feelings are moral in one set of circumstances, but immoral in another. That doesn’t make sense - either a thought/urge is lustful or it isn’t - and if it isn’t who cares if your aren’t in the act? and if your can’t have self fullfillment then the otthe isn’t allowed to recieve fullfillment from you, or you from them. Oh great, what a party pooper attitude, godness knows what people who think this way actually do on their wedding nights.
Sin, as in the seven deadly sins, exists inside of us. They are the vices that motivates acts of sin. Acts of sin acts like fertilizer for the Sin in our heart. It is this Sin in our heart that God frees us from through grace which we receive primarily through the sacraments. Sin is like a weed that stifles and perverts the God-intended development of our nature, therefore our nature is distorted. The effects of Sin on our nature are what we label the seven deadly sins as. Affected by sin, our sexuality becomes lustful, our hunger for food become gluttonious, etc. When our natures are healed by grace, our sexuality becomes chaste, our hunger for food become temperant.

Chastity is not a lack of a sexuality. It is a purified sexuality. It does not seek sexual pleasure for its own sake. Yes, sex is an exchange, a constant motion of self donation and active receiving, appreciative receiving. With sin, the primary focus is on taking and submitting to be taken from or bartering in some sort of exchange to one degree or another. With chaste love, the primary focus is on giving, and the receiving is secondary. What is the purpose of giving of yourself if you are refused. In accepting what you receive, you learn to do it in a way so that your heart gives more of itself, submits to the gift received thankfully without greed or reservation.

Now, as we live in a sinful world and are people still affected by sin, the perfection of humanity is not yet reached and we will be touched with lust even in our marital relations. But object is to reduce the lust in our hearts so that our actions and our nature may be purified to that of which God wills.

So in reality, we have two natures, a good and a bad, so it is not really an either or thing at all. It is a matter of degrees and a matter of willingfully embracing the vice by giving into the behavior that builds it.

There are only some behaviors that are objectively sinful, and others are completely subjective, depending completely on the individual’s state and intent. It is not enough to just avoid act of sin though. Grace crowds out sin. Therefore go to Mass as frequently as you can, go to confession at least once a month and establish a daily prayer devotion such as the rosary.

A completely chaste person could be in a state of arousal and have complete self control. He could remain in that state and not act upon it either in thought or action or he could seek his wife, if he has one, and have self control enough to refrain from the sexual act say if they’re practicing NFP and its a time of peek fertility and the family is having financial problems or something. Overall, his will would rule his passions rather than his passions ruling him.
 
Thanks for the lecture on sin. Your implying that I’m not aware of basic theology, and you are, thus my views are not valid and based on sin etc, while yours are correct. Yes I get it. You havn’t answered how phsycical attraction cannot be objectification, since the body appears as an object… Catholic ascetism is ridiculous is this respect. On top of that there’s no distinction made between different types of desire, if its during the act its pure cause it serves some greater non-sexual purpose. If not then it’s an ugly objectifying, selfish thing.
 
40.png
cynic:
Thanks for the lecture on sin. Your implying that I’m not aware of basic theology, and you are, thus my views are not valid and based on sin etc, while yours are correct.
The nature of Sin existing within us is not what I would call basic theology. I merely respond to where I see where some clarification may help you to better understand, and if all you got out of what I said was basic, than it sounds like I’m either doing a poor job communicating with you or you’re having difficulty grasping the entire concept.
40.png
cynic:
Yes I get it. You havn’t answered how phsycical attraction cannot be objectification, since the body appears as an object
Physical attraction is only a part of the whole, as a person’s body is a part of them. For instance, Its not just whether or not a person was given good and attractive genetics, but also how they have taken care of their body that says something about who they are. The more you love the person, the more attracted you will be to that person, regardless of what time and labor gives the body.

A chaste individual will likely be able to become aroused in situations a lustful individual might not be. For instance, I have heard of cases (mainly through Catholic radio where people call in about their problems) where the husband becomes so addicted to pornography that every physical flaw of his wife turns him off and he is no longer able to be attracted to her because his sexuality is so infested with Sin that his sexuality can only express itself through lust.

This is not to say that a man can’t appreciate a woman’s good genes if she is highly attractive, but his arousal is not determined by how long she stays at that peek of physical attractiveness.

The arousal is thus motivated out of something greater which is love, something completely selfless. The arousal comes from the desire to hand yourself over to the other. The physical feeling of being aroused does not change nor does the pleasure. It is not the pleasure that is sinful, but the desire to seek it for its own sake. Such desire is an aspect of the will, not of emotion. Sexual arousal still feels the same.

In effect it becomes a type of sexual love husband and wife share. They do not lust after each other. They love each other and their physical behavior and all the emotions and pleasures that come from it is an expression of that love.
Catholic ascetism is ridiculous is this respect. On top of that there’s no distinction made between different types of desire, if its during the act its pure cause it serves some greater non-sexual purpose. If not then it’s an ugly objectifying, selfish thing.
It is not ridiculas nor are we denying married people pleasure. Rather it is where their will is, if it is focused on self or outside of self. Practicing self denial of your selfish desires helps to build up selflessness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top