When is sexual attraction "wrong"

[CopticChristian]

**Yes to all of the above, if the following applies:- **

Protector.

I would hope that you realize that you have provided no insight when you consider the OP stating this…

My question is simple- isn’t being sexually attracted to someone basically a nice way of saying you lust for them?

The way I’ve always seen it, it seems like being attracted to someone is a near occasion of (the sin of) lust.

That’s not to say I want someone to justify lust for me (quite the contrary) but rather to frame sexual attraction appropriately

The OP has been lectured, the OP has been told to see a priest, seek help and more…

The OP does not understand what “lust” is…so to say…

**Yes to all of the above, if the following applies:-

Quote:

“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Matthew 5:28 (KJV) **

Help me understand how you have clarified the issue, the OP believes in his mind he lusts…now you add Jesus saying so without any explanation to clarify the OP’s understanding, rather misunderstanding…

I wish the OP would just answer my questions so that I can aid in demonstrating how thinking can change.

 

[Protector]

rkwittem;10792060] I know this question seems simple, but it has baffled me for a long time.

We are supposed to be attracted to the opposite sex…few would people argue this point. That’s how we’re wired. My question is simple- isn’t being sexually attracted to someone basically a nice way of saying you lust for them? People are not sexually attracted to people they don’t want to have sex with (on a biological level). I know there are shades of attraction, but the nuts and bolts of it is what it is- a biological predisposition for it.

Hello rkwittem; My previous post in answer to your question was deemed to be of no value in the present debate, as it is alleged that you do not know what lust is,

Coptic Christian wrote:-

The OP does not understand what “lust” is….

I provide a definition below which I believe is quite succinct

What is the definition of lust?
Lust is desire that is stimulated by a superficial impression of the object of passion with a selfish consideration in mind. On this basis, lust is not taking an interest in someone for their own sake, but mostly in order to gain pleasure of some sort from that person. (Wiki.answers.com)

Hope this helps.

Protector.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hello rkwittem; My previous post in answer to your question was deemed to be of no value in the present debate, as it is alleged that you do not know what lust is,

Coptic Christian wrote:-

I provide a definition below which I believe is quite succinct

Hope this helps.

Protector.

Protector,

Go back and read all the postings that are directed to the OP…telling the OP…what it is the OP does not get. It isn’t working.

 

[Debora123]

Well I just don’t understand what all this discussion is about or why he wouldn’t get it unless people are just confussing him more and not providing an accurate explanation.

OP, it’s very simple:

First of all, sexual attraction is not wrong. It’s the way we were made. As human beings, we are sexual creatures and sexual attraction towards people of the opposite sex is a natural, God given thing.

So no, that is NOT wrong.

**LUST is NOT sexual attraction. **

The Church’s definition of lust is not necessarily what you’ll find if you look up “lust” in the dictionary. Lust (as the Church describes it) is the desire or the act of using another human being as though they were an object. Lust is about not seeing a person as a person, but as an object to be used and abused.

Pornography is a great example of lust. The person who looks at pornography does not know or care about the model they are looking at. To them, that model is just an object that is there for their own sexual gratification. They don’t see that model as a human being with feelings and a life… as a person who is someone’s daughter, or sister, or mother.

A one night stand is also a great example of lust. The people who are engaging in this act obviously don’t care about each other. Their intent is to have sex with them once and then potentially never see them again. They’re being used like disposable tissue.

Now, let’s look at a scenario that is NOT lust:

A single young man goes to the park and sees a very attractive girl about his same age. He immediately feels attracted to her in a physical/sexual way. He thinks “wow, she’s beautiful… I wonder what her name is. I’d like to get to know her.” He gets up the courage to go up to her and introduce himself. They strike up a conversation and he realizes that he’s attracted to her personality as well. They hang out for about a half hour until one of them needs to go. They exchange phone #'s and plan on contacting each other again.

Now, during the course of their encounter the young man felt a physical, sexual, and emotional attraction to this girl. He became involuntarily aroused a couple of times while they were chatting and being flirty.

This scenario above was NOT lust. It was sexual attraction by itself with no lust involved.

So, let’s review:

SEXUAL ATTRACTION - A natural, God given feeling of attraction towards a member of the opposite gender.

LUST - Not seeing/treating another person as a whole human being, but rather as a disposable object to be used and abused for your own selfish sexual gratification.

Does that make sense?

I tried to explain to him what lust is but he didn’t seem to care, so

 

[CopticChristian]

I tried to explain to him what lust is but he didn’t seem to care, so

Deb,

I do not think the OP needs an explanation, as you can see the results of that tact have yielded little fruit. I do think that if the OP had an inkling of desire to address the problem then he would have answered my questions causing me to reflect on the sincerity of the desire to understand. Then there is this, in reading posts of the OP…

In this case, I am referring to someone who is too lazy to go even on a Sunday. I recently invited a girl who is not practicing to mass on Ash Wednesday.

Nonsense. Sex is the cherry on top of the sundae. I don’t buy a banana split at Dairy Queen so I can get the maraschino cherry on top. I get it for everything else- the ice cream, bananas, and the feeling of satisfaction it gives me. If we extend this analogy to marriage, sex is the cherry on top and the actual relationship and kids and other, fundamental components of marriage are the “meat” of the marriage (the ice cream, bananas, etc.). A marriage can exist without sex. But it cannot exist without respect, trust and a host of other elements that are required for a stable, healthy, and holy marriage. Sex is only truly needed for child-rearing.

I also respect others as people. But when their beliefs are so erroneous, I don’t give their beliefs much in the way of respect. They’re allowed to have them and I tolerate them on that level. But I do not tolerate their wrongness. It should be addressed every single time without fail. If they don’t accept it, that’s their problem. I have a duty to correct them at the very least…in a respectful and appropriate manner. I’ll phrase it like this- Christ reproached those who needed reproach. But he still respected them as others.

At risk of sounding arrogant or prideful, I’m better-read on Catholicism than my parents are (Catholic schooling gave me a leg up in that dept) and would have no problem talking to my sister and correcting her in regards to this new lifestyle of hers, but my parents have put their foot down on that right from the start.

The OP has stated that he has not read the Catechism and from this thread there is a question as to what the OP knows and understands and yet as you read above there is an unmerited confidence. Beyond that there is this…

I had it a while ago- not for this specifically, but we did spend most of the time on it. It did not work**. I did discover that I’m a schizoid. Not a full-blown one, but something of a lower level one. **I am not using this as an excuse to not take the next step…my intentions on this front are mostly based on my own sexual morality, however rigid and cold it may be. Which leads to my next point…
The “my wife will expect it” part is exactly what I’m leery of.

The OP has issues that would not be considered within the realm of expected understanding and as you can see there have been frustrations…

 

[Debora123]

Deb,

I do not think the OP needs an explanation, as you can see the results of that tact have yielded little fruit. I do think that if the OP had an inkling of desire to address the problem then he would have answered my questions causing me to reflect on the sincerity of the desire to understand. Then there is this, in reading posts of the OP…

The OP has stated that he has not read the Catechism and from this thread there is a question as to what the OP knows and understands and yet as you read above there is an unmerited confidence. Beyond that there is this…

The OP has issues that would not be considered within the realm of expected understanding and as you can see there have been frustrations…

Ah I see. Thanks.

 

[rkwittem]

Hello rkwittem; My previous post in answer to your question was deemed to be of no value in the present debate, as it is alleged that you do not know what lust is,

Coptic Christian wrote:-

I provide a definition below which I believe is quite succinct

Lust is desire that is stimulated by a superficial impression of the object of passion with a selfish consideration in mind. On this basis, lust is not taking an interest in someone for their own sake, but mostly in order to gain pleasure of some sort from that person.

I took a few days off to think about this.I get that definition of lust.

Also, it has become clear to me that I cannot sever the connection between lust and sexual attraction in my mind, making disordered sexual attraction (i.e. glancing at certain body parts for too long) a sin. The two are inextricably linked because of that quote by Christ about the man who looks at a woman lustfully.

I’m going to butcher this explanation, but as I understand it, sexual attraction is not in and of itself wrong. However, most expressions of it (like the one I listed), along with other lewd behaviors (whatever they may be- thoughts or deeds) most definitely are. The problem is that I simply don’t know where the line is between acceptable and not acceptable.
So in turn, I simply avoid as many “sexually charged” situations as I possibly can. For example, in the company of attractive women, I will alter my sight line/change seats so I cannot see her. If I’m working with one, I ignore her unless she says something. If I see one out in public, I avoid eye contact and especially close proximity. Those situations are just way too dangerous for me. This isn’t to say I don’t imagine I’ll turn into some kind of fiend or philandering idiot…but that some of those situations inject certain thoughts and feelings which frankly disgust me on every level.

Just to be clear, I have female friends. Some of them are good looking. I just would never, ever, ever be caught dead going out with them. I can think of a billion things I would rather be caught doing than that.

Coptic, I have not answered your questions since they don’t make a lick of sense to me. Please ask your question in the plainest English you are capable of.

 

[CopticChristian]

I took a few days off to think about this.I get that definition of lust.

Also, it has become clear to me that I cannot sever the connection between lust and sexual attraction in my mind, making disordered sexual attraction (i.e. glancing at certain body parts for too long) a sin. The two are inextricably linked because of that quote by Christ about the man who looks at a woman lustfully.

I’m going to butcher this explanation, but as I understand it, sexual attraction is not in and of itself wrong. However, most expressions of it (like the one I listed), along with other lewd behaviors (whatever they may be- thoughts or deeds) most definitely are. The problem is that I simply don’t know where the line is between acceptable and not acceptable.
So in turn, I simply avoid as many “sexually charged” situations as I possibly can. For example, in the company of attractive women, I will alter my sight line/change seats so I cannot see her. If I’m working with one, I ignore her unless she says something. If I see one out in public, I avoid eye contact and especially close proximity. Those situations are just way too dangerous for me. This isn’t to say I don’t imagine I’ll turn into some kind of fiend or philandering idiot…but that some of those situations inject certain thoughts and feelings which frankly disgust me on every level.

Just to be clear, I have female friends. Some of them are good looking. I just would never, ever, ever be caught dead going out with them. I can think of a billion things I would rather be caught doing than that.

Coptic, I have not answered your questions since they don’t make a lick of sense to me. Please ask your question in the plainest English you are capable of.

I stated my question as plainly as possible

Have you read the Catechism…you said no.

Do you know where the notion of the 7 deadly sins originated? This is quite simple. What don’t you understand about the question?

 

[rkwittem]

I stated my question as plainly as possible

Have you read the Catechism…you said no.

Do you know where the notion of the 7 deadly sins originated? This is quite simple. What don’t you understand about the question?

I was referring to the question of where my belief originated or something to that effect. I cannot remember specifically.
I’m assuming the 7 deadly sins concept was a counter to gifts of the holy spirit? Lust counters chastity. Pride counters humility, and so on…

 

[CopticChristian]

I was referring to the question of where my belief originated or something to that effect. I cannot remember specifically.
I’m assuming the 7 deadly sins concept was a counter to gifts of the holy spirit? Lust counters chastity. Pride counters humility, and so on…

No problem, I am not so much interested in specifics. Why don’t you think about how you came to believe what you believe and plan not to tell me. I don’t need to know. All I want is for you to reflect on how you came to think that way and as you do all I ask is that you go back in time, in your mind and think about it…don’t tell me…just let me know that you have those thoughts that you can recall and can reflect on…this is all I ask you to do…

If I ask, do you recall…just say yes…

Now…as for the 7 deadly sins…many people do not know that they originate from the writings of Gregory the Great…

lectionarycentral.com/GregoryMoraliaIndex.html

MORALS

ON

THE BOOK OF JOB

BY

ST. GREGORY THE GREAT,

TRANSLATED

WITH NOTES AND INDICES.

IN THREE VOLUMES

OXFORD, JOHN HENRY PARKER; J.G.F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 1844.

Now, before I go beyond this…look at the Catechism, it classifies Lust as one of the Capital sins…

V. THE PROLIFERATION OF SIN

1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

**1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia. **
1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel,139 the sin of the Sodomites,140 the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt,141 the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan,142 injustice to the wage earner.143

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

You are correct as the opposition to virtue however leave that notion for another conversation…

I want you now to think about the fact that you have not read the Catechism, commit to read the Catechism, and reflect on the notion of the Capital sins…as you plan to rethink what it is you think and believe…

can you do that?