When is sexual attraction "wrong"

[Baelor]

But most men can instantly, willingly, nurse an attraction to a beautiful woman

Then they are already sexually attracted. “Nursing a sexual attraction” is not “sexual attraction.”

to the point of sexual arousal, say within 30 seconds.

Sexual arousal is not sexual attraction.

Two men, one with a mature self-mastery, the other without, can have entirely different reactions…though both men might judge a particular woman to be equally attractive.

In which case they are both sexually attracted.

It’s this unchecked attraction that’s problematic.

I do not like your terminology. Sexual attraction need not be checked; it should not be dwelt upon.

 

[Edward_H]

Then they are already sexually attracted. “Nursing a sexual attraction” is not “sexual attraction.”

Sexual arousal is not sexual attraction.

In which case they are both sexually attracted.

I do not like your terminology. Sexual attraction need not be checked; it should not be dwelt upon.

I don’t care a bit what you like. You clearly favor an academic, pedantic, hair splitting set of terminolgy to one that is instead both practical and pastoral.

Moral matters hinge on the gray space that human nature likes to enlarge in order to find cover for its fallen tendencies.

Seekers are interested in how to pragmatically confront their nature…not on some mythical academic sliding scale notion of “attraction”. Line all the psychologists and physiologists end to end and they won’t agree on a definition (much less operationally defined measure) of “attraction”…so why should we watch you grasp for straws that aren’t really there in the lives of others.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t care a bit what you like. You clearly favor an academic, pedantic, hair splitting set of terminolgy to one that is instead both practical and pastoral.

Moral matters hinge on the gray space that human nature likes to enlarge in order to find cover for its fallen tendencies.

Seekers are interested in how to pragmatically confront their nature…not on some mythical academic sliding scale notion of “attraction”. Line all the psychologists and physiologists end to end and they won’t agree on a definition (much less operationally defined measure) of “attraction”…so why should we watch you grasp for straws that aren’t really there in the lives of others.

Welcome to my world:bigyikes:

I no longer feel alone in my frustration.:dancing::bounce:…

 

[Baelor]

I don’t care a bit what you like. You clearly favor an academic, pedantic, hair splitting set of terminolgy

Perhaps you would like a faith that was focused on feeling rather than reality. The notion that a Catholic should avoid precise terminology spits in the face of Catholic theology. How can a practical and pastoral approach even exist if it is not underpinned by what you so rashly deride? Also, I fail to see how saying that sexual attraction is not sinful is “academic” or “pedantic” or “hair-splitting.”

Seekers are interested in how to pragmatically confront their nature…not on some mythical academic sliding scale notion of “attraction”.

And how will such seekers know how to pragmatically confront their nature unless they have a precise sense of what is sinful and what is not? A well-formed conscience is the answer; many unfortunately do not have recourse to that for any number of reasons.

Line all the psychologists and physiologists end to end and they won’t agree on a definition (much less operationally defined measure) of “attraction”…so why should we watch you grasp for straws that aren’t really there in the lives of others.

I am not grasping for straws. I simply stated exactly what the terms I used meant and whether the actions described by those terms are sinful.

 

[Edward_H]

Perhaps you would like a faith that was focused on feeling rather than reality. The notion that a Catholic should avoid precise terminology spits in the face of Catholic theology. How can a practical and pastoral approach even exist if it is not underpinned by what you so rashly deride? Also, I fail to see how saying that sexual attraction is not sinful is “academic” or “pedantic” or “hair-splitting.”

And how will such seekers know how to pragmatically confront their nature unless they have a precise sense of what is sinful and what is not? A well-formed conscience is the answer; many unfortunately do not have recourse to that for any number of reasons.

I am not grasping for straws. I simply stated exactly what the terms I used meant and whether the actions described by those terms are sinful.

I can tell by your first comment that you completely don’t understand the basics of Catholic Moral Theology…the good and joyful struggle to lead a morally good life: the role of the will, the intellect, the emotions…virtue, vice, etc. the need to find reality daily through the cloud of our passions.

An excellent book is here:

theologicalforum.org/ProductInformation.aspx?BrowseBy=Category&CategoryId=110&ProductId=380

 

[Baelor]

I can tell by your first comment that you completely don’t understand the basics of Catholic Moral Theology…

That you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. You are wrong.

the good and joyful struggle to lead a morally good life: the role of the will, the intellect, the emotions…virtue, vice, etc. the need to find reality daily through the cloud of our passions.

Which is exactly the approach I advocate, which stands in opposition to yours.

 

[CopticChristian]

That you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. You are wrong.

Which is exactly the approach I advocate, which stands in opposition to yours.

I believe that the lurkers and others should take Ed’s opinion as correct. I disagree with your formulation. Ed is level headed and has much to offer.

 

[Edward_H]

That you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. You are wrong.

Which is exactly the approach I advocate, which stands in opposition to yours.

Look, normally I am a patient guy.

To make a big deal (as you are) about the nanosecond of (perceptual level) attraction before the brain categorizes the incoming visual stimuli as sexual in nature…is in my mind a pedantic exercise that no one but you cares about.

Most people get this: …we see stimuli…we classify them…then we make a decision as to whether they require any more processing or attention. A speeding car, a fast moving object moving in from our periphery, a bright light, a beautiful women. We sense…we perceive, we decide.

It’s this ‘decision’ that we should focus on from a moral theology point of view, as whether and how we continue to attend to a visual object becomes an important moral decision for each of us. It’s entirely cognitive at that point. We’ve “named” the object.

We make hundreds of such decisions every day…not all sexual in nature…but many such moral decisions per day.

I don’t care at all about what “precisely” is going on in between the lateral geniculate nucleus and the occipital cortex. What our feature detectors are sensing in our lower visual system, etc.

You want to play those games, have at it.

I am talking about moral theology…which I think what this thread is supposed to be about. Moral decision making. Moral choices.

Maybe you can find another site where the esoterica of sexual attraction and attentional processes are discussed. As I said…line all the professionals (and even the self-styled professionals) up end to end and you won’t get an answer, much less practical advice useful in our moral life.

What you may end up with is a lot of mumbo jumbo language perfect for the confused person to find safe haven to continue gawking at women.

 

[CopticChristian]

Unless it is purely voluntary, the question remains.

Then sexual attraction is already present.

You know little of behavior and learned patterns.

For the most part all behavior is learned behavior and with that in mind all learned behavior can be reinforced as Ed says. Aquinas describes passions and apetitites and this form of thinking is relevant if you are familiar with it.

In the long run, no child is born into this world with the understanding of what body parts are or what they do. They learn what they are and what they do. Sexuality is complex and to imply that sexual attraction is already there is to comply tacitly with

Essentialism=Born that way=God made me gay…

Because if you want to accept, propagate that sexual attraction is innate then you have already swallowed the pill of essentialism and your thoughts then become jaded without any ability to stand against what has yet to be proven.

Ed is correct. You are wrong.

 

[Baelor]

To make a big deal (as you are) about the nanosecond of (perceptual level) attraction before the brain categorizes the incoming visual stimuli as sexual in nature…is in my mind a pedantic exercise that no one but you cares about.

I am really only saying two things:

1. Sexual arousal is not inherently sinful.
2. Sexual attraction is not inherently sinful.

That’s it. If you have no problem with either of those statements, then we can end this.

 

[Edward_H]

I am really only saying two things:

1. Sexual arousal is not inherently sinful.
2. Sexual attraction is not inherently sinful.

That’s it. If you have no problem with either of those statements, then we can end this.

Too little meat to concur.

As is true in all moral decision making there is the object of the act, the intention, and the circumstances.

Trying to conclude and debate and make actual moral judgments (say in an examination of conscience) about the meaning of what is classified as “sexual” “arousal” and “inherent” is a fool’s errand, but have at it.

I’d prefer to stick with the Church’s fine formal and organized teaching on “object” “intent” and “circumstances”.

 

[Baelor]

Too little meat to concur.

So it is you, not I, who is pushing for an academic and pedantic (your words) discussion of what these words mean.

As is true in all moral decision making there is the object of the act, the intention, and the circumstances.

I already excised intention and circumstances from consideration:
Myself:

1. Sexual arousal is not inherently sinful.
2. Sexual attraction is not inherently sinful.

Please read my posts more carefully.

Whereas abortion, regardless of circumstances and intent, is always wrong, the same cannot be said for sexual attraction and arousal. Hence the validity of my statements.

I’d prefer to stick with the Church’s fine formal and organized teaching on “object” “intent” and “circumstances”.

I am not discussing intent or circumstances; see above. I also would stick to Church teaching, which, by the way, is specific to the point of what you clearly consider to be pedantry.

 

[BingoBoy]

Sexual attraction and lust are not the same thing.

 

[BingoBoy]

So it is you, not I, who is pushing for an academic and pedantic (your words) discussion of what these words mean.

I already excised intention and circumstances from consideration:

Please read my posts more carefully.

Whereas abortion, regardless of circumstances and intent, is always wrong, the same cannot be said for sexual attraction and arousal. Hence the validity of my statements.

I am not discussing intent or circumstances; see above. I also would stick to Church teaching, which, by the way, is specific to the point of what you clearly consider to be pedantry.

 

[Edward_H]

I already excised intention and circumstances from consideration:

Please read my posts more carefully.

Whereas abortion, regardless of circumstances and intent, is always wrong, the same cannot be said for sexual attraction and arousal. Hence the validity of my statements.

I am not discussing intent or circumstances; see above. I also would stick to Church teaching, which, by the way, is specific to the point of what you clearly consider to be pedantry.

You can’t stick to Church teaching on moral decison making and excise intention and circumstances from the discussion.

You’re walking in circles. Maybe someone else can help you.

 

[thewanderer]

I am really only saying two things:

1. Sexual arousal is not inherently sinful.
2. Sexual attraction is not inherently sinful.

That’s it. If you have no problem with either of those statements, then we can end this.

If that is all you are trying to say then I really don’t understand why you are arguing with Ed as everything he has said kind of implies that he accepts those two statements. If he did not then he would certainly have responded differently than he has in this thread. I have not seen anybody on this thread make the claim that either of these two things are inherently sinful, even outside of marriage. So if that is all you are trying to say then I believe we are all in agreement.

 

[Baelor]

You can’t stick to Church teaching on moral decison making and excise intention and circumstances from the discussion.

I am in fact affirming Church teaching, which acknowledges that some acts are intrinsically sinful while others are circumstantially sinful.

 

[thewanderer]

You can’t stick to Church teaching on moral decison making and excise intention and circumstances from the discussion.

You’re walking in circles. Maybe someone else can help you.

When you are just trying to understand a particular portion of Church teaching then of course you can. But it needs to be made clear what exactly is and is not being said (ie that it is only a portion of church teaching on the subject.)

 

[Kamaduck]

If that is all you are trying to say then I really don’t understand why you are arguing with Ed as everything he has said kind of implies that he accepts those two statements. If he did not then he would certainly have responded differently than he has in this thread. I have not seen anybody on this thread make the claim that either of these two things are inherently sinful, even outside of marriage. So if that is all you are trying to say then I believe we are all in agreement.

I’m pretty sure everyone agrees. We’re just using words differently- Ed means something different by “attraction” than Baelor, you, and I do. He’s including what we do with the attraction as part of it.

Can’t we all just agree that it is not in itself sinful to be attracted to someone, and it is not in itself sinful to be aroused? It’s not these things that are sinful, but whether we sought out sexual pleasure in the wrong context, and whether we dwell on (or “nurse”, as Ed says) these feelings. The sin would be in one’s intent or one’s reaction, not the fact that one was attracted or aroused in itself.

Just don’t seek out or dwell on sexual thoughts outside of marriage and you will be fine, right? I don’t understand why that is so complicated.

 

[Baelor]

If that is all you are trying to say then I really don’t understand why you are arguing with Ed as everything he has said kind of implies that he accepts those two statements. If he did not then he would certainly have responded differently than he has in this thread. I have not seen anybody on this thread make the claim that either of these two things are inherently sinful, even outside of marriage. So if that is all you are trying to say then I believe we are all in agreement.

One would think, yet a few posts prior he said that those claims did not have enough “meat.” I thought that it would have settled the discussion – and I want to reach agreement – but it did not.