When is sexual attraction "wrong"

  • Thread starter Thread starter rkwittem
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven’t read any of the posts, but I’m not sure why this discussion is still going on.

There is a difference between lust and mere sexual attraction. Hasn’t anyone explained this to the OP?? :confused:

It’s kind of the crux of his question.
 
Debora123 said:
I haven’t read any of the posts, but I’m not sure why this discussion is still going on.

There is a difference between lust and mere sexual attraction. Hasn’t anyone explained this to the OP?? :confused:

It’s kind of the crux of his question.
Click to expand...
Many times, but I don’t think he gets it yet. 😦 Want to join in?
 
Kamaduck said:
Many times, but I don’t think he gets it yet. 😦 Want to join in?
Click to expand...
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?
 
CopticChristian said:
Would you agree that these words that you started the thread with indicate that you have a concern?

Understanding that you have a concern what would you say that your desired goal is?

Let us assume that as you have said you are attracted to women, you like women, you have concerns about these feelings and dismissing any particulars…when it comes to you as a man…

what is your goal in life as it relates to women in the next few months, year, 5 years, 10 years…as an aid…complete this sentence…

When I think of women…it would be my desired goal to…
Click to expand...
Not being as scrupulous about sexual sin, clearly.

…be a lot more relaxed (in the context of what we discussed in this thread) around them.
 
Rau said:
I guess the “dangerous inclination to sexual sin” is what I have some difficulty to interpret. Frankly, I don’t know if by this you refer to a temptation to impure passing thoughts, impure fantasies, to masturbate, to engage in pre-marital sex or indeed to commit a crime of some kind. I further don’t know whether you are saying that your capacity to manage these temptations is (on the basis of past experience), especially weak - weaker than is typical in young men.
Click to expand...
Basically I strongly suspect that if pressed, I may not be able to resist temptation. So it is imperative that I avoid these temptations as much as possible. It is as much fear of the unknown as it is a deep-seated fear of going to hell. I regard sexual sin as especially humiliating and embarrassing, which I can’t say for other sins.
But what I do see is that you are choosing to reject you sexuality, a gift of God - not because you feel a call to another vocation - but just because it may be an area of temptation. That is not what God expects of you. There is a reason that Reconciliation exists. Despite good and well ordered intentions, we will from time to time fall, and God happily extends a hand to help us up.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the specific theology behind it, but reconciliation is not a crutch to lean on. I don’t want to presume anything about God’s mercy.
I read some of your earlier posts (other threads) and note that you also expressed these views:
Click to expand...
(sorry I didn’t pick up and include all the links)
Click to expand...
These views create a broader impression about your perspective - are you able to tie them together? [For example - I can see no direct connection between your expressed concerns about falling into sexual sin pre-marriage and these views).
Click to expand...
  • Boring in the sense of it being over-discussed, over-emphasized, and over-valued nowadays. I’m exhausted by it. Surely it cannot be that special? There has to be so much more to life.
  • My libido is not low in the traditional sense of the term. Physically I am capable of enjoying it. But every other sense of me abhors it and rejects it. Considering that sexual compatibility is a component of marriage that causes a great deal of strife (or can), I think it’s wise to look for women with similar perspectives. Consummate it, fine. Have kids, fine. Do it for anything less than those two deeds, and I have issues with it.
  • As for the wife thing, that’s absolutely correct. The thought of a woman asking me to have sex (even if married) on a regular basis is pretty disturbing. Yeah, it’s important to most people, but it makes me shudder at the thought. Even if she is my wife. At the same time, there’s a part of me that wants to give in. Obviously, I could never do that, but that’s not the point. The point is that being in that situation represents a near occasion of sin and the act of contrition states that you will avoid such situations.
That is my thing- avoiding near occasion of sin is hugely important to me.
[/quote]
 
rkwittem said:
  • Boring in the sense of it being over-discussed, over-emphasized, and over-valued nowadays. I’m exhausted by it. Surely it cannot be that special? There has to be so much more to life.
  • My libido is not low in the traditional sense of the term. Physically I am capable of enjoying it. But every other sense of me abhors it and rejects it. Considering that sexual compatibility is a component of marriage that causes a great deal of strife (or can), I think it’s wise to look for women with similar perspectives. Consummate it, fine. Have kids, fine. Do it for anything less than those two deeds, and I have issues with it.
  • As for the wife thing, that’s absolutely correct. The thought of a woman asking me to have sex (even if married) on a regular basis is pretty disturbing. Yeah, it’s important to most people, but it makes me shudder at the thought. Even if she is my wife. **At the same time, there’s a part of me that wants to give in. Obviously, I could never do that, but that’s not the point. The point is that being in that situation represents a near occasion of sin and the act of contrition states that you will avoid such situations. **
That is my thing- avoiding near occasion of sin is hugely important to me.
Click to expand...
While your overall attitude toward sex doesn’t surprise me, the bolded statement is baffling. How could it be a sin to enjoy having sex with your wife? Why would that be a near occasion of sin? :confused:
 
Kamaduck said:
While your overall attitude toward sex doesn’t surprise me, the bolded statement is baffling. How could it be a sin to enjoy having sex with your wife? Why would that be a near occasion of sin? :confused:
Click to expand...
There are a number of forbidden sexual acts, right? I.e. things straight men and straight women can’t do with each other. That’s the near occasion of sin, at least in my mind.
 
rkwittem said:
There are a number of forbidden sexual acts, right? I.e. things straight men and straight women can’t do with each other. That’s the near occasion of sin, at least in my mind.
Click to expand...
Some? You know you’d be tempted to do forbidden sexual acts? Even with someone you love?

Perhaps your problems run even deeper than I thought. 😦

(I was pretty sure that unitive+procreative in a respectful, loving manner was OK. Don’t think there’s a list of “forbidden sexual acts”, just stuff that doesn’t meet those requirements.)
 
Kamaduck said:
Some? You know you’d be tempted to do forbidden sexual acts? Even with someone you love?

Perhaps your problems run even deeper than I thought. 😦

(I was pretty sure that unitive+procreative in a respectful, loving manner was OK. Don’t think there’s a list of “forbidden sexual acts”, just stuff that doesn’t meet those requirements.)
Click to expand...
That’s what I’m referring to. I just don’t know where to draw the line between acceptable risk and near occasion of sin.
 
rkwittem said:
That’s what I’m referring to. I just don’t know where to draw the line between acceptable risk and near occasion of sin.
Click to expand...
:ehh:

Words fail me, so I’m going to hope Debora comes back. Did you at least understand Debora’s explanation of sexual attraction vs. lust?
 
rkwittem said:
Basically I strongly suspect that if pressed, I may not be able to resist temptation. So it is imperative that I avoid these temptations as much as possible. It is as much fear of the unknown as it is a deep-seated fear of going to hell. I regard sexual sin as especially humiliating and embarrassing, which I can’t say for other sins.

I don’t know the specific theology behind it, but reconciliation is not a crutch to lean on. I don’t want to presume anything about God’s mercy.
  • Boring in the sense of it being over-discussed, over-emphasized, and over-valued nowadays. I’m exhausted by it. Surely it cannot be that special? There has to be so much more to life.
  • My libido is not low in the traditional sense of the term. Physically I am capable of enjoying it. But every other sense of me abhors it and rejects it. Considering that sexual compatibility is a component of marriage that causes a great deal of strife (or can), I think it’s wise to look for women with similar perspectives. Consummate it, fine. Have kids, fine. Do it for anything less than those two deeds, and I have issues with it.
  • As for the wife thing, that’s absolutely correct. The thought of a woman asking me to have sex (even if married) on a regular basis is pretty disturbing. Yeah, it’s important to most people, but it makes me shudder at the thought. Even if she is my wife. At the same time, there’s a part of me that wants to give in. Obviously, I could never do that, but that’s not the point. The point is that being in that situation represents a near occasion of sin and the act of contrition states that you will avoid such situations.
That is my thing- avoiding near occasion of sin is hugely important to me.
Click to expand...
I think the issues you raise here are in fact more substantive than those posed in your initial post at the start of this thread. I believe many posters have presented persuasive arguments that neither “attraction” nor “arousal” is sinful (which was the subject matter of most of this thread). I hope you accept that. Arguments were also put that these are not lust (as defined by the catechism).

I would comment on your points above as follows:

Regarding Libido and Potential Future Wife & Marriage
The word Libido refers to the energy of your sexual drive. [Note: God gave you this drive - it is not evil.] I imagine it would be of great concern both to have a “normal” libido *and * “to abhor and reject it”, and I wonder if that is what you meant?

By all means, abhor and reject misuse of your sexuality - but not the thing itself. The ideal is to be comfortable with your sexuality (indeed, with your whole person), and to develop the maturity to use it wisely. Outside marriage, you should acknowledge it, and learn to control the drive, but recognise that you will surely fail from time to time - nearly everyone does in some fashion. And to fail is not fatal - you have reconciliation available. Indeed, you do God a great disservice by not trusting in his mercy. In marriage, some control will be necessary too (“not tonight darling, I have a headache”, etc.), but in marriage, sex is an important means of expressing and receiving love.

You go on to state a preference to limit sex in marriage to just a few occasions: to consummate a marriage and then a few more times in your marriage, sufficient to have the desired number of children. This is not God’s plan. God intended that the form of love known as Eros be a part of your marriage. Think about that. He intended you to experience Eros (together with the other forms of love - Philos and Agape) - yet you “shudder at the thought”. Do you agree God’s intentions are as I state them? If so - does that challenge you to seek to review your perspective? Do you see that your attitude to sex in marriage is incompatible with marriage - both because it is in conflict with God’s plan, and because it may be very unlikely that you will encounter a catholic woman with a similar view?

Occasions of Sin
Here you raise an intellectually interesting notion - and you suggest (I think) that this is actually the basis of the other attitudes you’ve outlined regarding sex in marriage, and indeed towards engaging with women/dating etc.

You are concerned that having sex (or indeed I would infer - just becoming aroused) within a marriage is an “occasion of sin” and hence should be avoided. [Your concern - expressed in another post - was that you will be tempted at some point to seek orgasm other than (with mutual love) inside your wife (which is the practical meaning of “unitive + procreative”). Sorry if that way of expressing the issue is confronting, but I fear too much scope for misunderstanding otherwise. ]

I think it then follows that you are arguing that Marriage itself is a “near occasion of sin” (given that according to God’s plan, sex is a part of a loving marriage relationship). You are then arguing the case that one of God’s sacraments is a near occasion of sin, which the Act of Contrition exhorts you to avoid. This can’t be write, can it? Your reasoning has gone off the rails somewhere, do you agree?
 
rkwittem said:
Not being as scrupulous about sexual sin, clearly.

…be a lot more relaxed (in the context of what we discussed in this thread) around them.
Click to expand...
Ok,

Let us go with that…

I want to be a lot more relaxed around women and not be scrupulous about sexual sin.

Is this what you want, if so, say yup, if not explain it again…

In the meantime, let me ask you this…
The way I’ve always seen it, it seems like being attracted to someone is a near occasion of (the sin of) lust. If that’s the case, why is it even permissible? A “necessary evil” doesn’t seem to jive with the belief that “God is infinitely good and makes all things good.” I’m not saying this to challenge my faith or whatnot- I’m genuinely baffled.
Click to expand...
You say you are baffled. I accept that. You say “The way I’ve always seen it”…now always is a long time. It means that you have been living with this formulation and understanding that as you think and believe so you act…and as you say based on this belief you state that your understanding of being attracted to someone is a near occasion of sin that you say may be lust. I am not saying that, but I will get to that later, however you believe this to be a severe attraction that causes you to question your understanding of God and how you were created and that baffles you.

Correct?

Now here is the question

What I don’t understand and ask you to explain to me is this, tell me how you formed this notion that baffles you that you have always “seen it”…in other words as you reflect back in time, explain to me how you came to believe this. Ok…
 
rkwittem;10792060] I know this question seems simple, but it has baffled me for a long time.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The following is very slightly off-topic, but has anyone any comments about it?

**
“Gender-neutral ruling in NSW court could have legal implications across Australia”, By Sarah Hawke www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-01/gender-story
Click to expand...
**

Protector.
 
Protector said:
The following is very slightly off-topic, but has anyone any comments about it?
Protector.
Click to expand...
Well,

I am not sure what to say.

This appears to be relevant to you. I am not sure that it is relevant to the OP. I can’t say that it is relevant to every person posting on this thread nor every person posting on the CAF. What I can say is that the link that you provided sends me to a site that says this…

Sorry, Page not Found

So, I am not sure that anyone can say anything except what information did you find relevant to you that you wanted to share?
 
Regarding Libido and Potential Future Wife & Marriage
The word Libido refers to the energy of your sexual drive. [Note: God gave you this drive - it is not evil.] I imagine it would be of great concern both to have a “normal” libido *and * “to abhor and reject it”, and I wonder if that is what you meant?
Click to expand...
No, it means I have an otherwise normal sex drive for someone of my age and gender , but I despise it. I tolerate it because I cannot get rid of it. It’s kind of like the appendix. It’s not really doing anything. And if it gets infected, you can die.
By all means, abhor and reject misuse of your sexuality - but not the thing itself. The ideal is to be comfortable with your sexuality (indeed, with your whole person), and to develop the maturity to use it wisely. Outside marriage, you should acknowledge it, and learn to control the drive, but recognise that you will surely fail from time to time - nearly everyone does in some fashion. And to fail is not fatal - you have reconciliation available. Indeed, you do God a great disservice by not trusting in his mercy. In marriage, some control will be necessary too (“not tonight darling, I have a headache”, etc.), but in marriage, sex is an important means of expressing and receiving love.
Click to expand...
It’s not that I don’t trust God’s mercy (that is assuming his mercy, not presuming). Presuming God’s mercy I was taught means that one commits an act while saying “I can just go to confession to be forgiven.” And that’s horribly, terribly, wrong. I do not expect control within marriage to be a problem. It is the pre-marriage time that concerns me at this time. Maybe I’m guessing it’ll be the whole “one wants what one cannot have” phenomenon, but I expect control will be much, much easier in marriage for me.
You go on to state a preference to limit sex in marriage to just a few occasions: to consummate a marriage and then a few more times in your marriage, sufficient to have the desired number of children. This is not God’s plan. God intended that the form of love known as Eros be a part of your marriage. Think about that. He intended you to experience Eros (together with the other forms of love - Philos and Agape) - yet you “shudder at the thought”. Do you agree God’s intentions are as I state them? If so - does that challenge you to seek to review your perspective? Do you see that your attitude to sex in marriage is incompatible with marriage - both because it is in conflict with God’s plan, and because it may be very unlikely that you will encounter a catholic woman with a similar view?
Click to expand...
I don’t agree that those are God’s intention. Marriage is unitive and procreative. God intends eros as it is the vehicle of orgasm, and by extension, procreation. Eros for the sake of eros is an abomination. Agape is the supreme example of love, and unfortunately it’s not done within most marriages either. If you can think of a case where you wouldn’t love your spouse, then you are not “doing” agape. (couldn’t think of a better word) Those are conditions, and make their love incapable of being unconditional.
As far as consummation, that seals the marriage, right? Hence, it is unitive in nature. Consummating a marriage and using sex to have children satisfies all that is required sexually in a marriage. Doing it for recreation is lust. I don’t see how it could be anything else. If kid’s aren’t the primary goal, don’t waste your time. I imagine most couples have this kind of sex, since it’s more preferable. Sex for fun? That’s lust. Or at the very minimum, a misuse of it. The very thought of it makes me want to vomit.

I’ve already given up expecting meet someone born in the last hundred years who shares my opinion of sexuality who is A. Catholic, B. single, C. interested in me, and D. on a path that may cross with me. (and E. who I will ever be capable of asking out because I wouldn’t be able to do it without some guilt, at any rate)
Occasions of Sin
Here you raise an intellectually interesting notion - and you suggest (I think) that this is actually the basis of the other attitudes you’ve outlined regarding sex in marriage, and indeed towards engaging with women/dating etc.
Click to expand...
You are concerned that having sex (or indeed I would infer - just becoming aroused) within a marriage is an “occasion of sin” and hence should be avoided. [Your concern - expressed in another post - was that you will be tempted at some point to seek orgasm other than (with mutual love) inside your wife (which is the practical meaning of “unitive + procreative”). Sorry if that way of expressing the issue is confronting, but I fear too much scope for misunderstanding otherwise. ]
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s correct. My specific and strongest fear is that I will simply have premarital sex (at her prompting of course- I’m far too reserved to ever ask something that taboo. I hate asking people over to watch movies.) I would be ashamed to tell my wife she was not my “first.” I would be even more ashamed if I married the same girl I committed fornication with.

Marriage itself isn’t a near occasion of sin, but the sex within may be unless it follows correct moral guidelines. I thought the two were separate. (You can be married without sex, right?)
 
CopticChristian said:
Ok,

Let us go with that…

I want to be a lot more relaxed around women and not be scrupulous about sexual sin.

Is this what you want, if so, say yup, if not explain it again…

In the meantime, let me ask you this…
Click to expand...
Yes.
You say you are baffled. I accept that. You say “The way I’ve always seen it”…now always is a long time. It means that you have been living with this formulation and understanding that as you think and believe so you act…and as you say based on this belief you state that your understanding of being attracted to someone is a near occasion of sin that you say may be lust. I am not saying that, but I will get to that later, however you believe this to be a severe attraction that causes you to question your understanding of God and how you were created and that baffles you.
Click to expand...
Correct?
Click to expand...
Now here is the question
Click to expand...
What I don’t understand and ask you to explain to me is this, tell me how you formed this notion that baffles you that you have always “seen it”…in other words as you reflect back in time, explain to me how you came to believe this. Ok…
Click to expand...
Basically, when I was really struggling as a teen, I asked myself why I was suffering with that curse, and also what the causes were. I eventually came to the conclusion that the only reason we are sexually attracted to people is to ensure that we want to have sex with people. Seeing attractive people (again, as a young boy) only made me sexually aroused. It didn’t stimulate my mind or my spiritual side other than to send it into a proverbial sea of dread and guilt, which I took as an indication that it was somehow disordered. Sexual attraction sounded like nice window dressing for “lust” so it didn’t sound so bad.
 
RKWittem,

I really don’t understand what your issue still is.

We’ve already told you what is and is not wrong, and what is and is not considered lust. I honestly don’t know what else to tell you except to seek counsel with a priest about your warped view of sex and scrupulosity. 🤷
 
rkwittem said:
Yes.

Basically, when I was really struggling as a teen, I asked myself why I was suffering with that curse, and also what the causes were. I eventually came to the conclusion that the only reason we are sexually attracted to people is to ensure that we want to have sex with people. Seeing attractive people (again, as a young boy) only made me sexually aroused. It didn’t stimulate my mind or my spiritual side other than to send it into a proverbial sea of dread and guilt, which I took as an indication that it was somehow disordered. Sexual attraction sounded like nice window dressing for “lust” so it didn’t sound so bad.
Click to expand...
Perfect.

Now, you have not read the Catechism. You understand that Lust is one of the 7 deadly sins. Do you know from where the notion of the 7 deadly sins comes from?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top