We're supposed to stay away from things that could get us sexually aroused, but just talking to a beautiful woman gets me sexually aroused. What shou

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingoutloud
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
livingoutloud said:
When I have to talk to a beautiful woman what am I supposed to do?
Click to expand...
Please forgive the question if it sounds offensive but under what circumstances do you find you “have to talk to a beautiful woman?” I’m asking because one of my younger brother (in his mid-50s now) wasted many years of his life talking to ONLY beautiful women, then he wondered why he became obsessive about this one or that one. Literally, he couldn’t distinguish between personalities, similarities, values, interests because he was so focused on the physical package. He wasted a lot of time and opportunites.
 
CuriousInIL said:
I agree with this and frankly am confused why it seems that many people have assumed that there is a lust issue when the original question says nothing at all about lust, just arousal.
Click to expand...
I agree with this synopsis. The OP didn’t claim that he was thinking lustful thoughts. I can relate to the OP, totally. There have been times where having a heart to heart conversation with a beautiful woman can cause arousal without even the slightest perverted thought. Yes, MEN, too, can be turned on by feeling that we’ve made an EMOTIONAL connection with a woman, while lust or impure thoughts have NOTHING to do with that.

I think we need to address a faulty premise. That faulty premise is that whenever a man is sexually aroused, he is therefore guilty of a lustful sin. I don’t think that is necessarily true. For example, during the R.E.M. stages of sleep, we can be aroused while having a dream, a dream that has NOTHING to do with lust. I think what the OP is experiencing falls under the category of nonsinful, and unwelcome arousal, which can be a natural body reaction. Actually, I think this may even be a positive thing, as it implies that the OP can be attracted to the person on the inside. If her PERSONALITY is turning you on, sexually, and she is single, ask her out!!!
 
CuriousInIL said:
I agree with this and frankly am confused why it seems that many people have assumed that there is a lust issue when the original question says nothing at all about lust, just arousal.
Click to expand...
Do you mean attraction?

There is nothing wrong with attraction, although same-sex attraction is disordered.
Arousal is alright in the context of a marriage and is perfectly normal or ordered. But arousal apart from marriage leads to lust.
 
ABiii said:
Hi,

Actually, I believe there is nothing wrong with being aroused… it is a normal body function that was designed.

It is when we start to take sinful reactions from being aroused that it really becomes sinful.

I believe it was Aquinas who said there are levels
  1. Thought (Fantasized) but is immediately rejected by will. (Ok)
  2. Thought is entertained but does not go to action ( venial )
  3. Thought is entertained, and goes into sinful action ( mortal )
I might be wrong in the details, but I believe that is the gist.

God bless!
Click to expand...
i am not sure about step 2 there? is that saying that it is only venially sinful to entertain sexual thoughts? if i remember correctly, my theology teacher taught us that intentionally trying to receive sexual pleasure outside of marital sex is a grave matter. I am not 100% sure either, but I think that is something that could be looked up.
 
I’d like to ask the OP what concerns him about feeling aroused? Do you fear falling into sinful behavior as a result of feeling aroused?

It seems that several of have guessed that’s your real concern.
 
Bishopite said:
Do you mean attraction?

There is nothing wrong with attraction, although same-sex attraction is disordered.
Arousal is alright in the context of a marriage and is perfectly normal or ordered. But arousal apart from marriage leads to lust.
Click to expand...
Arousal only leads to lust if you act upon it that way.
 
What should you do? First, thank God that you are a healthy, normal male and that your hormonal system works just fine. Next consider that this is a sign that you probably should consider marriage as your first choice of vocation. Third, check that your regard for the woman is respectful. Fourth, carry on, soldier.

Matthew
 
drafdog said:
What should you do? First, thank God that you are a healthy, normal male and that your hormonal system works just fine. Next consider that this is a sign that you probably should consider marriage as your first choice of vocation. Third, check that your regard for the woman is respectful. Fourth, carry on, soldier.
Matthew
Click to expand...
Love it. You’d make a great father.
 
Bishopite said:
Do you mean attraction?

There is nothing wrong with attraction, although same-sex attraction is disordered.
Arousal is alright in the context of a marriage and is perfectly normal or ordered. But arousal apart from marriage leads to lust.
Click to expand...
I used arousal because the OP asked about being “aroused.” Neither he nor I used “attraction”; so, no, I do not mean attraction.

Indeed, I disagree with the last point in your post. I think the following, however, is true: Arousal (apart from or in marriage) MAY lead to lust. Lust MAY lead to arousal. Arousal (apart from or in marriage) may occur without lust. Lust may occur without arousal. There is nothing wrong with arousal in the absence of lust.
 
drafdog said:
What should you do? First, thank God that you are a healthy, normal male and that your hormonal system works just fine. Next consider that this is a sign that you probably should consider marriage as your first choice of vocation. Third, check that your regard for the woman is respectful. Fourth, carry on, soldier.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

Anyway, yeah, lighten up – it isn’t that you’re supposed to stay away from people you find attractive, it’s that you’re supposed to avoid seeking out opportunities for lust. So don’t go around hanging your eyes on womens’ chests and you’ll be fine, but hey, that’s just called ‘passable social skills’.
 
Bishopite said:
If a person is aroused by another person that is not their spouse, that is lust.
Click to expand...
That is not necessarily true. Lust is ALWAYS a sin. Arousal can be a natural bodily reaction that does not necessarily have to accompany lustful thoughts, looks, or intentions.
 
[ChangingHeart;2961808]That is not necessarily true. Lust is ALWAYS a sin.
Click to expand...
I never said lust was anything but a sin. I’m not sure where you got that one from.
Arousal can be a natural bodily reaction that does not necessarily have to accompany lustful thoughts, looks, or intentions.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I see your point if we are speaking of an arousal of a croud perhaps. But the context of the OP was sexual arousal wasn’t it?
Sexual arousal with anyone apart from ones spouse is lust which is always a sin
(Mt 5:28). I can’t see any other way around it.
If a man and a woman are aroused by each other sexually then how is lust not part of that equation?
 
[CuriousInIL;2960086]I used arousal because the OP asked about being “aroused.” Neither he nor I used “attraction”; so, no, I do not mean attraction.
Click to expand...
Gotchya.
Indeed, I disagree with the last point in your post. I think the following, however, is true: Arousal (apart from or in marriage) MAY lead to lust. Lust MAY lead to arousal. Arousal (apart from or in marriage) may occur without lust. Lust may occur without arousal. There is nothing wrong with arousal in the absence of lust.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is nothing wrong with arousal in the absence of lust, and sexual arousal apart from lust within marriage isn’t a sin and is actually holy.

If a man is aroused by a woman without lusting over her then that would be attraction, would it not?
That’s why I mentioned attraction.

And I disagree that lust may occur without arousal. How is that possible? Lust is an excess desire for something first brought forth in arousal from the heart.

Without arousal, lust can’t happen.
Without lust arousal can happen.
 
Bishopite said:
Gotchya.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with arousal in the absence of lust, and sexual arousal apart from lust within marriage isn’t a sin and is actually holy.

If a man is aroused by a woman without lusting over her then that would be attraction, would it not?
That’s why I mentioned attraction.

And I disagree that lust may occur without arousal. How is that possible? Lust is an excess desire for something first brought forth in arousal from the heart.
**
Without arousal, lust can’t happen**.
Without lust arousal can happen.
Click to expand...
I wish the bolded portion was true but is not. The way I am using the terms, lust can easily happen without arousal–although lust will often lead to arousal.

Did you mean the last sentence as written, with which I agree, or did you mean to have a parallel comment that would have contained “can’t” rather than “can”?

Perhaps we need to define how we are using (sexual) arousal or “sexually aroused” as used in the OP. I suspect we are talking past each other using differing definitions.

For present purposes, consider this:
Singer presents a model of the process of sexual arousal, in which he conceptualized human sexual response to be composed of three independent but generally sequential components. The first stage, ‘‘aesthetic response,’’ is an emotional reaction to noticing an attractive face or figure. This emotional reaction produces an increase in attention toward the object of attraction, typically involving head and eye movements toward the attractive object. The second stage, ‘‘approach response,’’ progresses from the first and involves bodily movements towards the object. The final ‘‘genital response’’ stage recognizes that with both attention and closer proximity, physical reactions result in genital tumescence. Singer also notes that there is an array of other autonomic responses, but acknowledges that the research literature suggests that the genital response is ‘‘the most reliable and convenient to measure’’ in males.
Click to expand...
Quoting Wikipedia entry on “sexual arousal” (a convenient source at the moment); see, Singer, B. Conceptualising sexual arousal and attraction. The Journal of Sex Research. 1984; 20, 230–240

For my part, I was referring really to the final stage in the Singer model.
 
CuriousInIL said:
I wish the bolded portion was true but is not. The way I am using the terms, lust can easily happen without arousal–although lust will often lead to arousal.

Did you mean the last sentence as written, with which I agree, or did you mean to have a parallel comment that would have contained “can’t” rather than “can”?

Perhaps we need to define how we are using (sexual) arousal or “sexually aroused” as used in the OP. I suspect we are talking past each other using differing definitions.

For present purposes, consider this:Quoting Wikipedia entry on “sexual arousal” (a convenient source at the moment); see, Singer, B. Conceptualising sexual arousal and attraction. The Journal of Sex Research. 1984; 20, 230–240

For my part, I was referring really to the final stage in the Singer model.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m trying to think in practical terms. Sexual arousal can happen between a man and a woman properly who are married, without lust being involved.
It seems to me that sexual arousal (which is what I’m thinking of since the OP had that in mind) has to happen in order for a person to lust, being lust is the overmastering desire for something. Although lust can manifest itself in other ways that are non-sexual.
In order to get to the lust level one needs to have an arousal first. If a person lusts then he/she has already passed the stage of arousal.
Perhaps I’m misreading the “Singer” model but it seems to be saying that the “genital response” which is the last response is a lust response, or is the lust response.

The Catholic Catechism says about lust:

2351 “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

When the person reaches the “genital response” lust seems to happen, although within the context of a marriage if both parties are not seeking self pleasure for themselfs, nor apart from the procreative and unitive purposes of intimacy, lust doesn’t occur, although arousal has occured, hence my thought that lust can’t happen without arousal, yet arousal can happen without lust. 🙂
 
Bishopite said:
I guess I’m trying to think in practical terms. Sexual arousal can happen between a man and a woman properly who are married, without lust being involved.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that sexual arousal (which is what I’m thinking of since the OP had that in mind) has to happen in order for a person to lust, being lust is the overmastering desire for something. Although lust can manifest itself in other ways that are non-sexual.
In order to get to the lust level one needs to have an arousal first. If a person lusts then he/she has already passed the stage of arousal.
Perhaps I’m misreading the “Singer” model but it seems to be saying that the “genital response” which is the last response is a lust response, or is the lust response.

The Catholic Catechism says about lust:

2351 “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

When the person reaches the “genital response” lust seems to happen, although within the context of a marriage if both parties are not seeking self pleasure for themselfs, nor apart from the procreative and unitive purposes of intimacy, lust doesn’t occur, although arousal has occured, hence my thought that lust can’t happen without arousal, yet arousal can happen without lust.
I agree that arousal can happen without lust. But, I believe that lust may happen without arousal.

IMO, and relying on the CCC definition of lust, lust is a desire, a mental act. IMO arousal is a physical act. So, each is independent of the other.

If lust can’t happen without arousal, someone who is impotent can not lust. I don’t think that is so. Although physically constrained, they can still have lustful desires.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top