When is sexual attraction "wrong"

[Kamaduck]

That sounds like lust to me.

It’s hard to tell with a colloquialism like that, but if the man is simply realizing that the woman is attractive and/or becoming aroused, that in itself is not lust.

If he was specifically seeking out sexual pleasure and/or dwelling on impure thoughts, that would be lust.

EDIT: Coptic, perhaps you’ve noticed that the OP is here again? It would be appreciated if you argued with people about unrelated topics in your own space and stopped cluttering up rkwittem’s thread.

 

[CopticChristian]

Of course it is.

psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/200903/how-common-is-masturbation-really
Women–jezebel.com/5107639/92-of-women-masturbate-but-how-often-do-they-do-it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation#Frequency.2C_age.2C_and_sex
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CE4QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmcclungclinic.com%2Ffiles%2Fmasturbation2.doc&ei=QZqnUdmZO8nN0AGMhoDAAQ&usg=AFQjCNGzaYbnFOfGrcDrGcJdbLU82J9QrQ&bvm=bv.47244034,d.dmQ&cad=rja
pleasuresofloving.com/masturbation.html
pleated-jeans.com/2011/04/18/infographic-masturbation-facts-and-statistics/

So? I never claimed you were representative of the male population. I simply stated what is statistically accurate.

The studies do that for me. That is why the field of statistics exist. Perhaps you should read a statistics book to understand why sample populations of a given size accurately reflect with a very small chance of error features of a larger population. Censuses are not necessary.

Clearly not.

You are out of your league. I suggest you stick to what you know. If this is the source of any of your thinking that it is clear that others should steer clear of your advice…as seen here from some of your sources…

The study by University of Chicago sociologists analyzed data from 3,116 Americans aged 18 to 60 (1,769 women and 1,347 men)

Previous studies have shown that compared with people raised in families that are religiously liberal or non-observant, those raised in fundamentalist families report less masturbation. This study agreed.

Your first study is a small sample that only provides information based on a small sample. It is interesting and someone got a publication. Insofar as you are not a clinician and appear to be a google scientist then the value of this is only of value to you.

The Gossard Big M Survey interviewed 1,000 women, ages 18-30, and their answers indicate that not only do 9 out of 10 women play with themselves, two-thirds do it three times a week.

This is another small survery that means something to someone trying to prove a point but little else.

Q. “My priest told me masturbation was a sin and must be confessed and controlled. My friend’s priest asked my friend about the circumstances and how he felt about it, and he told him it wasn’t a sin. How do you explain that?”

A: “This is a rather common example of the different ways priests approach the issue of masturbation. Your priest adheres to the formal Roman Catholic teaching that sexual acts are appropriate within the marital union and should be focused on procreation. Your friend’s priest didn’t say masturbation wasn’t a sin until he understood the nature of the situation in which masturbation occurred. After doing so, he felt the occurrence was not sinful. The implication is that in a different context he might have found the act of masturbation to be sinful. A number of priests now share your friend’s priest’s view, but it is still counter to the Church’s teaching and your friend’s priest would at least be cautioned if his pronouncement came to the attention of Church officials. In any event, many reasonable, concerned Catholics are confused. Many of them are having to examine their consciences carefully before discussing the issue with a spiritual advisor and then trying to form their consciences in a way that is true both to their religious convictions and to their individual needs.”

I suggest you consult the Catechism and stick with that. You cannot go wrong with that. I suggest that anyone reading what you write realize that your attempt to be scientific, medical, psychological is faux-science and as I suspected has little or no value when it comes to offering medical, psychological or meaningful advice.

People masturbate. It is wrong. The Catechism explains this well. Ignore what anyone else says. It matters not what anyone else does or says.

Let me give you the most important statistic that has the most meaning…

You, one person, if you masturbate every day, if you masturbate 50% of your waking hours, if you masturbate 10% of your life, if you masturbate 16 2/3% in the morning and at night…and you fail to go to confession before you die…then your fate…

more likely than not is 100% sealed…now there is a statistic for you to swallow…

 

[Baelor]

You are out of your league. I suggest you stick to what you know.

Which is statistics, among other things. Perhaps you should back out while you still have a shred of credibility.

And this is not helping the OP, who has returned.

Your first study is a small sample that only provides information based on a small sample. It is interesting and someone got a publication. Insofar as you are not a clinician and appear to be a google scientist then the value of this is only of value to you.

There are many studies. Why should I ignore the combined results of all of them? What sample size is necessary? What alpha would you like to use?

I suggest you consult the Catechism and stick with that. You cannot go wrong with that. I suggest that anyone reading what you write realize that your attempt to be scientific, medical, psychological is faux-science and as I suspected has little or no value when it comes to offering medical, psychological or meaningful advice.

The purpose of statistics is not to provide advice; it is to model reality. The only thing I cared about in any of my sources were the statistics and studies on the frequency of masturbation.

Claim: Many men struggle with masturbation.
Proof: Studies show that almost all men struggle with masturbation.

Duh. The fact that 90+% of men have masturbated in their lifetime is exactly the necessary proof to show it is a common issue.

People masturbate. It is wrong. The Catechism explains this well. Ignore what anyone else says. It matters not what anyone else does or says.

I never said it was correct. I said it was a common sin.

 

[CopticChristian]

Which is statistics, among other things. Perhaps you should back out while you still have a shred of credibility.

And this is not helping the OP, who has returned.

There are many studies. Why should I ignore the combined results of all of them? What sample size is necessary? What alpha would you like to use?

The purpose of statistics is not to provide advice; it is to model reality. The only thing I cared about in any of my sources were the statistics and studies on the frequency of masturbation.

Claim: Many men struggle with masturbation.
Proof: Studies show that almost all men struggle with masturbation.

Duh. The fact that 90+% of men have masturbated in their lifetime is exactly the necessary proof to show it is a common issue.

I never said it was correct. I said it was a common sin.

This is CAF, it matters not what the world does. It matters what the Church teaches and what you do. Be not conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…and give up google searches…

 

[Kamaduck]

This is CAF, it matters not what the world does. It matters what the Church teaches and what you do. Be not conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…and give up google searches…

This is ridiculous. The only point was that the OP is not unique in his struggles. Would you disagree? Is he the only man who has ever commited this grave sin? I think not.

Anyways, the topic at hand is not masturbation anyway. It’s sexual attraction, which is not a sin in the first place.

 

[Baelor]

This is CAF, it matters not what the world does. It matters what the Church teaches and what you do. Be not conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…

Exactly. I am simply stating that the OP should not feel that he is the only one struggling with his issue.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You have posted what it is you do, chastising someone for suggesting that in giving yourself to your handsome partner, that this is not love. Shall I produce your own words or do we let this rest?

Perhaps you’re referring to this post from way back in 2007? In it, I write:

Fast forward to today, and I find myself in a 9 year (going on 10) monogamous loving relationship with a really wonderful, intelligent, caring, gifted, challenging Christian man. Our relationship could hardly be defined as characterized primarily by our inordinate, disordered and hedonistic lust for each other (let me assure you, though, he’s one handsome guy). But sex is not the keynote of my love for him or his love for me. It is not, in other words, the foundation of our relationship. Have I misused my sexuality in the past? Definitely I have. I have sinned. It’s not something of which I’m proud. Am I sinning in my current relationship when I’m intimate with my partner? There’s certainly opportunity. But I don’t believe that simply being intimate with my partner is de facto sinful. Many here will probably say Yes! It is! But I don’t think so. And I firmly believe that neither the Bible nor Tradition speak in a condemning way of my relationship with my partner.

From this passage you could reasonably assert that:
–In 2007, sex was not the keynote of my love for my partner;
–I am guilty of having misused my sexuality;
–In 2007, I did not believe that being intimate with my partner was de facto sin even though the intimate nature of our relationship (i.e., the fact of the relationship) provided opportunity for sin.

Did I recount my sexual history (such as it may be), or detail what sort of sexual activities my partner and I may or may not have gotten up to? No. I did not.

I’ve a feeling you’re reading into the word “intimate” because you have a lot of ideological baggage (unrelated to moral or theological considerations) where same-sex attracted people are concerned. Certainly, sharing your life with someone is an intimate experience. But sex need not be the keynote (nor even any part) of that intimacy. Indeed, all human beings crave intimacy from the ones they love. Is not part of chastity learning how to give and receive intimacy appropriately?

More to the point though–a lot can happen in six and a half years. People change. Attitudes change. Behaviors change. Have you any real evidence (part from your lurid suspicions) to suggest that I have committed any particular sexual sins since 2007 which would render me incapable of talking about chastity?

Also, since my sex life (or lack thereof) is not really the focus of this thread (shame on you, Coptic)…to bring us back on topic, perhaps you could help me with this:

If what I’ve written in post #142 above is untrue, point out to me the untruth.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Baelor]

Deo Volente,

It is no use. CopticChristian still states that I am a student interested in finance in university even though that information is totally out-of-date (being several years old) and I have repeatedly corrected him. His research methods are nonexistent.

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Perhaps you’re referring to this post from way back in 2007? In it, I write:

Fast forward to today, and I find myself in a 9 year (going on 10) monogamous loving relationship with a really wonderful, intelligent, caring, gifted, challenging Christian man. Our relationship could hardly be defined as characterized primarily by our inordinate, disordered and hedonistic lust for each other (let me assure you, though, he’s one handsome guy). But sex is not the keynote of my love for him or his love for me. It is not, in other words, the foundation of our relationship. Have I misused my sexuality in the past? Definitely I have. I have sinned. It’s not something of which I’m proud. Am I sinning in my current relationship when I’m intimate with my partner? There’s certainly opportunity. But I don’t believe that simply being intimate with my partner is de facto sinful. Many here will probably say Yes! It is! But I don’t think so. And I firmly believe that neither the Bible nor Tradition speak in a condemning way of my relationship with my partner.

From this passage you could reasonably assert that:
–In 2007, sex was not the keynote of my love for my partner;
–I am guilty of having misused my sexuality;
–In 2007, I did not believe that being intimate with my partner was de facto sin even though the intimate nature of our relationship (i.e., the fact of the relationship) provided opportunity for sin.

Did I recount my sexual history (such as it may be), or detail what sort of sexual activities my partner and I may or may not have gotten up to? No. I did not.

I’ve a feeling you’re reading into the word “intimate” because you have a lot of ideological baggage (unrelated to moral or theological considerations) where same-sex attracted people are concerned. Certainly, sharing your life with someone is an intimate experience. But sex need not be the keynote (nor even any part) of that intimacy. Indeed, all human beings crave intimacy from the ones they love. Is not part of chastity learning how to give and receive intimacy appropriately?

More to the point though–a lot can happen in six and a half years. People change. Attitudes change. Behaviors change. Have you any real evidence (part from your lurid suspicions) to suggest that I have committed any particular sexual sins since 2007 which would render me incapable of talking about chastity?

Also, since my sex life (or lack thereof) is not really the focus of this thread (shame on you, Coptic)…to bring us back on topic, perhaps you could help me with this:

If what I’ve written in post #142 above is untrue, point out to me the untruth.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

I am all too familiar with your writings and shaming, how dare you’s etc. So, while you believe that an orientation is not of interest and you state that your past is your past…

Are you Anglican?

Do you reject the teachings of the OHCAC as contained in the Catechism?

Have you abandoned Homosexual acts?

Have you abandoned your same sex partner?

it matters…

 

[Kamaduck]

Mark,

I am all too familiar with your writings and shaming, how dare you’s etc. So, while you believe that an orientation is not of interest and you state that your past is your past…

Are you Anglican?

Do you reject the teachings of the OHCAC as contained in the Catechism?

Have you abandoned Homosexual acts?

Have you abandoned your same sex partner?

it matters…

It actually doesn’t matter, because Deo Volente’s private life has no bearing on the question of whether sexual attraction is sinful and whether it’s sinful to date someone you are sexually attracted to. Those are the issues up for discussion here.

 

[Baelor]

Mark,

I am all too familiar with your writings and shaming, how dare you’s etc. So, while you believe that an orientation is not of interest and you state that your past is your past…

Are you Anglican?

Do you reject the teachings of the OHCAC as contained in the Catechism?

Have you abandoned Homosexual acts?

Have you abandoned your same sex partner?

it matters…

It does not. This thread is an attempt to help the OP. Factual information being communicated is the only relevant thing. If you disagree with something DV posted, explain why. His history – and present – are totally immaterial. The correctness of a statement is independent of its utterer.

Oh, and I reported you for harassment.

 

[CopticChristian]

It does not. This thread is an attempt to help the OP. Factual information being communicated is the only relevant thing. If you disagree with something DV posted, explain why. His history – and present – are totally immaterial. The correctness of a statement is independent of its utterer.

Oh, and I reported you for harassment.

Thank you…

 

[Baelor]

Thank you…

You are welcome. Now maybe we can get back to helping the OP if he has not been frightened off.

 

[Rau]

There nothing wrong with feeling attracted to another. If you look at a woman and say, “Wow, she turns me on.” This is okay. Our attracts are hard wired as part of our sexuality. These thoughts are sort of like a bird that lands in a tree… but one must just not allow the bird to to build a nest. If we allow ourself to fantasize, linger on our attraction and allow ourselves to just dwell on sex…
this is lust. Being attracted to a person is just natural so accept this and move on. It is whether you act upon this thought our allow it nest and grow in your heart.

Many men are also concerned that waking up in the morning with an erection is also a sin…
nope, this is caused by a full bladder and is not sin. Other erections when you are young are soley due to high levels of testosterone and not indicative of sin for many younger men can not avoid these, even if they wanted to.

RK, your response to the above (in a subsequent post) was to say that this sounds like lust. A number of posters have said that it is not, and we have explained what would be lust/sinful, and also supplied the catechism definition of lust. What say you to the positions we’ve put?

We have also mentioned the parable about the servant burying a talent in the ground, and one poster pointed out that life is a journey and that “opting out” (to paraphrase) is not the way to go about the journey.

Please debate our points, or we can’t progress.

 

[CopticChristian]

Dude, enough with the mud-slinging. Whether or not he’s homosexual has nothing to do with this question at hand, as far as I see it. I would suggest you stay on-topic, especially since you told Kamaduck that you “would love to engage the OP.”

Excellent. Let ud do this. I read all your posts. I have some things I want to ask.

Are you willing to engage in a few questions that I may ask?

 

[rkwittem]

RK, your response to the above (in a subsequent post) was to say that this sounds like lust. A number of posters have said that it is not, and we have explained what would be lust/sinful, and also supplied the catechism definition of lust. What say you to the positions we’ve put?

We have also mentioned the parable about the servant burying a talent in the ground, and one poster pointed out that life is a journey and that “opting out” (to paraphrase) is not the way to go about the journey.

Please debate our points, or we can’t progress.

I only remarked that the “she turns me on” line sounded like lust. It says nothing for any of her other merits other than arousal, which has no use anywhere outside the conjugal act in my opinion.

I’m aware of the parable of 3 talents, but I’m not entirely sure I agree with the common interpretation as you’re framing it. I’ve always been of the opinion that it concerns God-given abilities and talents (I am aware that “talents” in the Biblical language meant a large sum of money, not a special inclination to do something) which could be used for His glory and the good of all. I frankly don’t see what use my sexual faculties have to anyone, seeing as I’m not married. Any use of them is a waste and accordingly, a sin at some level. I grouped it under the larger term “lust” for lack of a better term. (Aren’t the 7 deadly sins more used as broad terms? Obviously the 7 are sins, but they have more specifically named sins that go with them. That was my understanding, anyway.)

As for “opting out,” what better way to avoid those sins? I am referring of course to Matthew 5:30.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:30[/BIBLEDRB]

I already know I have a dangerous inclination towards sexual sin. Accordingly, I have tried to expel it from my mind to no avail. So I’ve brought it here in an attempt to reconcile it with myself in a healthier, but still chaste, way.

 

[rkwittem]

Excellent. Let ud do this. I read all your posts. I have some things I want to ask.

Are you willing to engage in a few questions that I may ask?

I’m still waiting for you to ask them.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m still waiting for you to ask them.

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. 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.

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…

 

[Rau]

I only remarked that the “she turns me on” line sounded like lust. It says nothing for any of her other merits other than arousal, which has no use anywhere outside the conjugal act in my opinion.

I’m aware of the parable of 3 talents, but I’m not entirely sure I agree with the common interpretation as you’re framing it. I’ve always been of the opinion that it concerns God-given abilities and talents (I am aware that “talents” in the Biblical language meant a large sum of money, not a special inclination to do something) which could be used for His glory and the good of all. I frankly don’t see what use my sexual faculties have to anyone, seeing as I’m not married. Any use of them is a waste and accordingly, a sin at some level. I grouped it under the larger term “lust” for lack of a better term. (Aren’t the 7 deadly sins more used as broad terms? Obviously the 7 are sins, but they have more specifically named sins that go with them. That was my understanding, anyway.)

As for “opting out,” what better way to avoid those sins? I am referring of course to Matthew 5:30.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:30[/BIBLEDRB]

I already know I have a dangerous inclination towards sexual sin. Accordingly, I have tried to expel it from my mind to no avail. So I’ve brought it here in an attempt to reconcile it with myself in a healthier, but still chaste, way.

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.

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.

I read some of your earlier posts (other threads) and note that you also expressed these views:

• sex is boring, not important, not an essential element of a marriage etc.
• you view your libido as low and if marrying, would hope to marry a person with similarly low libido.
• you are leery of the issue that "eventually your (future) wife would expect it (sex) [forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10204444&postcount=21]](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10204444&postcount=21]).

(sorry I didn’t pick up and include all the links)

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).

 

[Kamaduck]

I only remarked that the “she turns me on” line sounded like lust. It says nothing for any of her other merits other than arousal, which has no use anywhere outside the conjugal act in my opinion.

It’s true that dating a woman solely based on how attractive she is is a bad call. However, acknowledging that one is attracted to her isn’t lust. Unless you are seeking out sexual pleasure in the wrong context or dwelling on sexual thoughts in the wrong context, what you are doing is not lust.

I’m going to keep repeating that line until you appear to understand it.

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.

I think this is important. So far, rkwittem has not actually told us whether he routinely falls into sin here- he just keeps mentioning a “dangerous inclination to sexual sin”, basing this on the fact that he has impure thoughts and used to have a specific problem with chastity when he was a teenager. (I’m pretty sure a good 80% of the population is in the same boat.)

Rk, when you talk about having a “dangerous inclination to sexual sin”, are you basing that on anything other than your previous problem and the fact that you still have impure thoughts?

If not, I’ll have to say that your assessment of yourself is incorrect. You sound pretty normal to me, except that you’re obsessing about sinning every time you’re attracted.