K
Kamaduck
Guest
He knows that lust is sinful. He just mistakenly thinks that sexual attraction is, too.
His issue is that he can’t seem to tell which is which.
- Status
His issue is that he can’t seem to tell which is which.
E
Edward_H
Guest
The test is if God interrupted one’s train of thought would one apologize to God for waiting His time and for sullying His daughters.He knows that lust is sinful. He just mistakenly thinks that sexual attraction is, too.
His issue is that he can’t seem to tell which is which.
T
thewanderer
Guest
The problem is that this is only a helpful test if ones conscience is formed correctly. If ones conscience is too liberal then one will feel free to engage in sinful behavior, if ones conscience is overly scrupulous then one will feel unnecessary guilt and fear over perfectly innocent behavior. Simply saying that the correct actions are the ones that do not offend God is not going to be very helpful to the OP.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Exactly right…or if it has been calloused through a lack of confession.
The Holy Spirit can rehab.
Yet there are some lukewarm types who will claim they’re conscience isn’t formed so they can continue to do what feels good to them.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
It’s not semantics, it’s important. You cannot be sinning simply by having an involuntary biological response. If you selfishly seek it out, that is the sinful part. Having the reaction is not, in and of itself, sinful.
We’re not talking about obsessing about attraction- that’s bad. We’re talking about having sexual attraction in the first place, which is normal and healthy.
I mean… No, I can’t accept that finding people sexually attractive is sinful. I used to believe that- came from a fundamentalist community that taught no dating until college and that we weren’t supposed to have any interest in the opposite sex until then, at which point we would magically start having wonderful relationships. It tore me up inside, I really thought every innocent crush, every sped-up heartbeat, was me being horribly sinful. I didn’t understand why I couldn’t force my body to take no notice.
Now I know that it’s because our bodies (even girl bodies!) are meant to take notice. We can’t force ourselves to not feel sexual attraction. We just decide what to do with it.
What you are describing in your posts is not a way of not feeling sexual attraction. It is a way of avoiding falling into lust. Which is good, yeah, but it doesn’t mean that you were doing something wrong by being attracted to people in the first place.
@wanderer- I sometimes ask adults what is appropriate behavior for a couple before marriage. They often say “don’t do anything you wouldn’t do in front of your grandmother.” To which I respond “Well, I guess talking is out.”
E
Edward_H
Guest
Yes…but you’re wrong. Not all instances of sexual attraction are “involuntary biological…”…as I pointed out many posts ago.It’s not semantics, it’s important. You cannot be sinning simply by having an involuntary biological response. If you selfishly seek it out, that is the sinful part. Having the reaction is not, in and of itself, sinful.
We’re not talking about obsessing about attraction- that’s bad. We’re talking about having sexual attraction in the first place, which is normal and healthy.
I mean… No, I can’t accept that finding people sexually attractive is sinful. I used to believe that- came from a fundamentalist community that taught no dating until college and that we weren’t supposed to have any interest in the opposite sex until then, at which point we would magically start having wonderful relationships. It tore me up inside, I really thought every innocent crush, every sped-up heartbeat, was me being horribly sinful. I didn’t understand why I couldn’t force my body to take no notice.
Now I know that it’s because our bodies (even girl bodies!) are meant to take notice. We can’t force ourselves to not feel sexual attraction. We just decide what to do with it.
What you are describing in your posts is not a way of not feeling sexual attraction. It is a way of avoiding falling into lust. Which is good, yeah, but it doesn’t mean that you were doing something wrong by being attracted to people in the first place.
@wanderer- I sometimes ask adults what is appropriate behavior for a couple before marriage. They often say “don’t do anything you wouldn’t do in front of your grandmother.” To which I respond “Well, I guess talking is out.”
K
Kamaduck
Guest
Then you’re defining the term differently than me.
T
thewanderer
Guest
lol, yeah, that kind of thinking is just so wrong. I’m sorry, but as an engaged woman I am going to kiss my fiance, and kiss him tenderly, to show him affection, but not when there are other people around who will be made to feel awkward by such a public display of affection. Maybe, maybe a quick peck on the lips in front of others, but even that we keep to an absolute minimum (maybe its happened once or twice?), and I’m not even talking my grandmother here, I’m talking about my peers as well. The reality is that PDA really does make a lot of people uncomfortable, that doesn’t mean that displays of affection must always be avoided, just be careful to keep them appropriate to the situation. The kind of fear mongering that makes a person think that they must treat each other as brother and sisters would up until the moment they are married is wrong. Obviously they can’t behave as a married couple, but your fiance is not your sibling, and you should under no circumstances treat them as such. They are the person you have decided (and promised) to marry, to give your whole life to within the context of a sexual relationship. If your relationship with your fiance is that of a brother to a sister then you need to reevaluate whether or not you should be getting married in the first place. (and no, I’m not saying that it is necessary to kiss before being married, but even if you decide to save your first kiss until you are married you ought not to think about your fiance as though he/she were your sibling. If you do there is something wrong.)@wanderer- I sometimes ask adults what is appropriate behavior for a couple before marriage. They often say “don’t do anything you wouldn’t do in front of your grandmother.” To which I respond “Well, I guess talking is out.”
T
thewanderer
Guest
Ed H is right though. A lot of the time sexual/physical attraction is an involuntary response, but it is also absolutely possible to help encourage that response or to deepen it. And in both of those cases it is no longer merely an involuntary biological response. I don’t see why you would refuse to call such a thing sexual attraction either… I mean, what else are you going to call it? You can’t just call it lust, because married people can do this to help get things going in a perfectly loving and moral manner. So what are you going to call it besides sexual attraction?
K
Kamaduck
Guest
I suppose that makes sense, but the language is confusing me. I guess I think you can choose to encourage and deepen an attraction that is already there, but only if you are already attracted in the first place. Whether you encourage or discourage it is your response to it, and the initial attraction is not something you choose to feel.
If we go back to the OP, he’s asking if he should avoid talking to attractive women because he thinks sexual attraction = lust, which is not true. Discouraging the attraction doesn’t mean avoiding everyone we think is attractive, does it? I thought it just meant that we don’t encourage it and try not to think about it. We avoid falling into lust that way. That doesn’t mean we have to avoid them, or that we have to lie to ourselves and say we are not attracted in the first place.
I could be wrong, obviously- I’m still working this out myself.
R
Rau
Guest
Let’s just refresh our memories on what the central question is about, as I think a lot of debate is wandering to neighbouring issues, and thus there is the likelihood of people debating at ‘cross-purposes’. I think the 2 posts that posed the initial questions are:
Rkwittem
"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? …
On a more personal note it’s driven me crazy. I hate admitting this, but it has completely shackled me when it comes to forming any semblance of a healthy (and moral) relationship with women…"
MidnightSun12
"RK, I can completely relate to what you are going through here. I am a 26 yr old man, who is a new convert to the faith, and I have pretty much had to give up on dating because it’s not possible for me to go on a date without becoming aroused to some degree. Even holding hands with an attractive woman or looking at her directly can cause me to experience arousal.
…Maybe a sufficiently virtuous man can hold hands with a woman without experiencing a biological sexual response, but I cannot at this point. Based on my struggles with these lesser forms of intimate expression, I know for a fact that there is no possibility that I could share a short kiss with a girlfriend (who is not my wife) and remain faithful to the Church’s teachings.
I realize that, without God’s intervention, no woman out there is going to be willing date somebody like myself who will not kiss before marriage. Therefore, I have decided to stop dating…I will continue to wait and put my trust in Him that he will bring somebody into my life who I will be able to date and remain faithful to the Church’s teachings …"
So these posters are referring to a physical attraction & “biological response” that may arise in a relationship, and worrying that in experiencing that, they do wrong. They are not discussing behaviour that might follow the recognition of attraction, and involve exploiting it for personal gratification or such.
The first post is confusing attraction with Lust, which it clearly is not, as a reading of the catechism definition confirms:
**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.
The second post notes that he experiences a physical reaction (arousal) when on a date, and fears that this alone is morally wrong, and he thus should avoid going on dates. He seems to suggest that remaining “faithful to the Church’s teaching” requires him to have no physical reaction (arousal), at least at this point in a relationship.
For my part, I know of no catholic teachings that would argue that:
Rkwittem
"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? …
On a more personal note it’s driven me crazy. I hate admitting this, but it has completely shackled me when it comes to forming any semblance of a healthy (and moral) relationship with women…"
MidnightSun12
"RK, I can completely relate to what you are going through here. I am a 26 yr old man, who is a new convert to the faith, and I have pretty much had to give up on dating because it’s not possible for me to go on a date without becoming aroused to some degree. Even holding hands with an attractive woman or looking at her directly can cause me to experience arousal.
…Maybe a sufficiently virtuous man can hold hands with a woman without experiencing a biological sexual response, but I cannot at this point. Based on my struggles with these lesser forms of intimate expression, I know for a fact that there is no possibility that I could share a short kiss with a girlfriend (who is not my wife) and remain faithful to the Church’s teachings.
I realize that, without God’s intervention, no woman out there is going to be willing date somebody like myself who will not kiss before marriage. Therefore, I have decided to stop dating…I will continue to wait and put my trust in Him that he will bring somebody into my life who I will be able to date and remain faithful to the Church’s teachings …"
So these posters are referring to a physical attraction & “biological response” that may arise in a relationship, and worrying that in experiencing that, they do wrong. They are not discussing behaviour that might follow the recognition of attraction, and involve exploiting it for personal gratification or such.
The first post is confusing attraction with Lust, which it clearly is not, as a reading of the catechism definition confirms:
**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.
The second post notes that he experiences a physical reaction (arousal) when on a date, and fears that this alone is morally wrong, and he thus should avoid going on dates. He seems to suggest that remaining “faithful to the Church’s teaching” requires him to have no physical reaction (arousal), at least at this point in a relationship.
For my part, I know of no catholic teachings that would argue that:
- Feeling physical attraction = Lust;
- The subconscious reaction of our bodies (arousal) is sinful. Is it sinful to feel hunger as we walk into, and smell the odours from, a hot bead shop. Are we then guilty of gluttony?
E
Edward_H
Guest
Sex is not the same as eating. Food is necessary for the individual to live. Not so sex.
We confuse people when we equate bodily functions that differ markedly. We make it seem as if we will decay and cease to properly function unless we have sex. And this mind set is seen in all the nonsense about repression etc.
Dwelling on food however can still be a sin.
[/quote]
T
thewanderer
Guest
I believe the point being made is that having a physical, unwanted/unloooked for reaction, whether it is of sexual attraction or a desire for food is never, in itself immoral.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Look, let’s put this little nothing thread away.
Anything more than a passing thought (involuntary) is wrong. By the time the frontal lobe can put it in words…the thought, urge,notion should be coming under the control of the will and the intellect.
If we can put words around it…it’s a conscious thought…and at that stage it needs to be put under the control of the will.
R
Rau
Guest
Agree with that (though I note that sex is necessary for survival of the species, if not the individual!).
But more substantively, I am concerned that we don’t, by digressing from the specific questions posed, cause groundless fears in people, and I seek to point out that natural reactions as identified by the 2 posters to which I referred, are not sinful. It is only how you (consciously) respond that matters.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Right no fear needed. We fall. We get up with God’s hand. We struggle again.
Struggle is good. Too much of society and many unformed Catholics too often counsel people that all manner of things are ok…sexual fantasies, masturbation…etc.
And it’s all wrong. It’s good to confront ones weaknesses in the confidence that God will help us grow in holiness at His pace.
T
thewanderer
Guest
But even then there is a level of attraction which is perfectly ok and moral between unmarried people. It is normal and healthy for two people in a committed relationship to be attracted to each other. It is impossible to not be attracted to someone one day, and then marry them and all of a sudden be attracted to them. Thats not how either life or relationships work. What is wrong is allowing that attraction to lead you to desire sex with them before your married, or to think of or treat the other person as an object for your own personal gratification. Being attracted to another is not sinful. Sometimes not even if you are intentionally resting in that attraction.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Nursed sexual attraction between unmarried persons is NEVER perfectly ok.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
It is not a “little nothing thread”.
Look- if the OP is sinning by being aroused (and he isn’t, but let’s pretend), does that mean he should avoid becoming aroused at all costs?
If he is aroused by attractive women, can he not date those people? Can he not speak to them? Must he avoid all attractive women in media, and in person? Where is the line?
That sounds like a miserable way to live, and it seems to be what he and Midnightsun are suggesting. They believe normal human interaction of any sort is a near occasion of sin that should be avoided. This is nonsense. If it’s really true for both of them, they need psychiatric help, not avoiding attractive women.
While I do think they should seek help from support groups of some kind, it is not sinful to become aroused if one did not seek to become so. They are not sinning by talking to people who they find attractive, as long as they treat those people with respect and do not lust after them.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I deleted my post because I realized you had made a distinction between sexual attraction and other kinds of attraction earlier in this thread, which is an interesting point. At which point, when one is sexually attracted, which I think in this context can even be separated from physically attracted, then one needs to try and let go of it and instead focus on other aspects of the attraction to the person in question.
- Status